Preamble

The House met at half-past Ten o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — MURDER (ABOLITION OF DEATH PENALTY) BILL

Considered in Committee [Progress 7th April].

[Sir SAMUEL STOREY in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — Clause 1.—(ABOLITION OF DEATH PENALTY FOR MURDER.)

Amendment proposed: In page 1, line 5, after "murder", insert:
except for any murder done in the course or furtherance of theft"—[Mr. Deedes.]

Question again proposed, That those words be there inserted.

10.35 a.m.

The Deputy-Chairman: Before I call the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), I would remind the Committee that we are discussing Amendment No. 5 and with it Opposition Amendments Nos. 6, 18 and 19. They are
In page 1, line 5, after "murder", insert:
except for any murder by shooting or by causing an explosion".
In line 5, after "murder", insert:
except for any murder done by shooting in the course or furtherance of theft".
In page 2, line 14, at end add:
(5) The following murder shall continue to be capital murder, and shall be liable to the same punishment for murder as heretofore, that is to say any murder that is referred to in section 5 (1) (b) of the Homicide Act 1957 where the accused has previously been convicted of an indictable offence involving violence against the person.

It will also be in order to discuss Amendment No. 27, in page 1, line 5, after "murder", insert:
except for any murder by shooting of a Sovereign or Head of State committed in the United Kingdom".
but it is not selected for a Division.

Mr. Ray Mawby: May I draw your attention to the fact, Sir Samuel, that there are fewer than 40 members present.

The Deputy-Chairman: I cannot accept that at this moment.

Mr. R. T. Paget: When we parted on the last occasion I was making the point that the killer was an aberrant in any animal or, indeed, bird, society, and that the ordinary normal man, in just the same way as the normal wolf or jackdaw, requires no deterrent to prevent him killing his kind because it is something which is within his nature. The normal man no more requires a deterrent to murder than he requires a deterrent to buggery. It is just something which the normal man cannot bring himself to do.
I would also say that this incidence of aberration is probably no more common among criminals than among any other part of society. There is, for instance, probably no higher proportion, of homosexuals among criminals than among other people. Probably the same is true regarding killers, although it may also be true that in both cases people who indulge in crime are those with less self-control who may give greater play to their aberrant desires.
But as to the tendency, I suggest that there is no evidence at all that it is more common among criminals than anybody else. In respect of a previous Amendment I was very doubtful whether there would be a majority of retentionist—sother, perhaps, than in the special case of killing a warder—among prison officers. I have no doubt at all, however, that there would be an enormous majority of retentionists among the prison population. All our evidence tells us that.
The ordinary criminal takes the very poorest of view of the "tearaway," the "amateur," who is apt to shoot, and who gives the profession a thoroughly bad name. One finds if one talks to prisoners


that their whole attitude is extremely retentionist. I think also—though this may be purely coincidental—that they seem to to have the same characteristics—conservative, superstitious, emotional rather than rational. They are the sort of people who tend to take the strong traditionalist, retentionist view. The real problem we have to consider is not what deters the normal man; he does not require a deterrent. It is what deters the aberrant.
For the ordinary man probably the most effective social deterrent is notoriety. The normal man finds nothing more abhorrent than the parade of a departure from normal standards, whether they be physical or moral, the parade of his abnormality. Notoriety is the most terrible punishment, but not to the aberrant. There is nothing which the killer finds more attractive than his fame and his publicity, a passionate jealousy as to the inch-age which he is getting in the newspapers.
This merely illustrates the difference between what deters the aberrant and what deters the normal man. We had an example quite recently when, after the tragedy of the train derailment in Essex, because of the amount of publicity which it received, there was a bout of attempts to wreck trains all over the country. By making this sort of thing famous and notorious, one makes it attractive to the aberrant.
The question which we are discussing is whether the death penalty is attractive or a deterrent to this aberrant type, the killer within the pack. One starts off with the fact that we do not know that the death penalty is able to deter anybody. The hon. Member for Dorset, North (Sir Richard Glyn) takes the bell-man's argument. "I have said it once, I have said it twice and I have said it thrice," the bellman said, "and so it must be true." In fact, we do not know that the death penalty has ever deterred anybody. I am not denying the possibility that it may have done in a particular case. It is, I suppose, just possible that there is a man who has sufficient control of himself at the point of killing to draw the distinction between the terrible consequence of 10 years in gaol and the possible terrible consequence of hanging, and determines his action at that

moment of tremendous emotion—which, of course, killing must be—on that distinction.
I find it difficult to conceive of that individual, but I will concede that he may exist. On the other hand, we know very well that a number of murders have been directly caused by the death penalty, in which the only motive has been the primeval desire to be the victim of the sacrifice. Rhodes was an example, Marjoram was an example, as was the recent case of Terry, when he shot the bank manager after the robbery was completed for no purpose other than to incur the death penalty on the very day on which his two friends, Forsyth and Harris, were hanged for the Hounslow towpath murder.
There was no prospect of escape for this man who desired the fate of his two friends, who desired to be the sacrificial victim. Manuel, in Scotland, I am assured by one of my hon. Friends who was at the trial—though I do not know the case—was another instance of a man who desired execution.
I am not saying that, taken to this extreme, it is common. I do not know whether it is more or less common than the man who draws the extraordinary distinction between the two penalties at the moment he kills. It may be that the two cancel out, but it indicates that the deterrent to the aberrant personality is not the same as the deterrent to the normal personality. Even though this kind of killer—the Rhodes, the Marjoram and the Terry—may be rare, if, by making exceptions, we concentrate this type of killer on particular people, we shall considerably increase the danger to those people. I think that that argument applies rather to murders which do not take place, those of prison officers and policemen, only once in every three or four years, where the addition of this type of murder would greatly increase the number of such murders. Those which we are considering at the moment are the murders which do happen, those in the course of theft and in which firearms are used. To these two cases which we are discussing together, different arguments apply. So far as murders in the course of theft are concerned, there is no evidence that the death penalty is a special deterrent to any greater or less extent than it is to any other murder.
10.45 a.m.
But by taking murder in the course of theft, one excludes many of the most awful and terrible murders, the rape murders, the immensely wicked murders, and includes cases like that of Vickers, those which are substantially accidental murders, cases where a man strikes out in panic. It is the treating of that sort of case as capital when the dreadful cases are not capital which has largely revolted the judges and made them change their minds on this.
It therefore seems to me that the argument against this exception of theft is the argument that we must have a scale of iniquity if we are to go in for extraordinary penalties. One cannot take the kind of case like that of Vickers, which is quite low in the scale of iniquity, and give it special punishment. Far away the most dangerous exception would, of course, be the firearms case, the type of chap who uses a firearm as a dramatisation of his act, making it a tremendously and exceptionally bold thing to do, and makes it so attractive.
I remember those lines at the beginning of one of the sagas:
These were a company of bold men, but all save one had experienced fear. Thorsen feared God; Thorgut feared the king; Torvorh feared the elements; but Thorgier alone feared nothing, alone had not experienced fear, neither of God, nor the king nor the elements.
The danger is this determination to be the Thorgier of society, the bold man who fears nothing, the man who takes the ultimate risk, the man who puts himself in the position of the ultimate danger. He may turn out to be an arrant coward, but it is the pose, not the reality, which is the danger. To him, this special glamour of the carrying of a firearm is the one likely to increase its use, and particularly by the sort of man, the exhibitionist, from whom killers are drawn, and who uses it.
I would, therefore, say that this is a most dangerous Amendment; that what one needs is the heavy, dull penalty for having a firearm. That is what has been introduced, and that is what will lower the incidence of the use of firearms. I ask the Committee to reject all these Amendments, partly because I believe that in this subject one should not have exceptions at all—it is something that we should abolish—but, in

particular, because I believe that, if we are to have exceptions, these seem to me to be very bad ones.

Sir Rolf Dudley Williams: Although I am particularly interested in one Amendment, I should like to refer to the matter raised by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). I think that our people are extremely concerned and gravely worried about the increase in the use of firearms in the pursuit of crime, and that there is a very valid reason today why this particular type of offence should, when it results in someone losing his life, continue to carry the death penalty.
I do not know where the hon. and learned Gentleman lives, but I know that he has great knowledge of the country. Anyone who lives in the heart of the country, in a lonely house, knows the fear that sometimes comes on people when there is a knock at their door or a ring at the bell in the middle of the night. I myself, if Parliament does not support the need for this offence to continue to carry the death penalty, will certainly never go to my front door in the heart of the country without a weapon. As I am still able to carry a sporting-gun, there is a risk, if anyone comes to my house in the middle of the night, of a fatal accident. It must be realised that there is considerable fear amongst wide sections of the population that if this offence does not carry the death penalty there will be grave danger of armed attacks on people living in the heart of the countryside.
The Amendment I have tabled—No. 27 on the Notice Paper—provides for the retention of the death penalty
…for any murder by shooting of a Sovereign or Head of State committed in the United Kingdom.
This, of course, refers to a visitor to these shores. Assassination of this nature has always been viewed with horror by our people, and I suggest that if this offence does not carry the supreme penalty, we may well find that, should it occur within the confines of the United Kingdom, grave difficulties will be caused between ourselves and other states.
I ask the Committee to consider what would have been the feeling between this country and the United States of America today if that dreadful assassination of the late President Kennedy had not taken


place in Texas, but in London. We may say that the man who committed that foul murder was deranged—he may well have been—but I think that there would have been grave reflection upon this country if, in such circumstances, the ultimate penalty had not been exacted upon such a miscreant.
I think without any doubt that, as I understand it, the death penalty would be retained for certain offences other than murder, and I should have thought that an assassination of this nature could have been looked upon as a political act that would merit this sort of penalty. I therefore hope that whatever may be the Committee's view about the retention of the death penalty for other forms of shooting, it will be agreed that the man who commits the assassination of a visitor to these shores should certainly suffer the ultimate penalty.
The Amendment moved by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) provides the death penalty for
…any murder by shooting or by causing an explosion.
That is another fairly obvious exception. It is an offence that should still carry capital punishment. There is something particularly obnoxious about someone who attempts to kill a number of his fellow beings by means of an infernal machine. We have had cases recently of bombs being placed amongst luggage in aircraft, the result being that the aircraft have been destroyed and a number of people have been killed. There was such a case comparatively recently in the United States of America.
This may not involve the perpetrator of the crime in any risk whatsoever. He can put a bomb with a time device in luggage being despatched by aircraft. There is no risk to him at all, but numbers of people may lose their lives as a result, and the effect of such an incident can be very great indeed in these days of large airliners. We may find that men, women and children—distinguished and humble alike—lose their lives, and the ultimate penalty not be exacted from the person concerned.
The person may be a crank, or a man who wishes to commit political assassination—I know that this has some attraction when one considers some of the poli-

tical assassinations that could be committed against the party opposite—but I certainly think that anybody who carries out that sort of offence should not be able to look forward to nine or 10 years in prison and then let loose, if the present Home Secretary has his way, to do it again. I hope, therefore, that the death penalty will be retained in regard to these two offences—the letting off of an infernal machine and the murder of a visiting Head of State or Sovereign.
I have never disguised the fact that I am opposed to the abolition of the death penalty. I know that the hon. and learned Member for Northampton—who has now, I am sorry so see, left the Chamber—produced some very specious arguments why the death penalty should be abolished, but I think that it is an effective deterrent; and that the offences I have mentioned are so foul that they certainly call for exceptional treatment.

Mr. Angus Maude: My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir Rolf Dudley Williams) has said that he has never disguised the fact that he is in favour of the retention of the death penalty. I have never disguised the fact that I am in favour of its abolition. I was in favour of its abolition in 1956, and have remained so to this day. I have, however, somewhat unwillingly come to the conclusion that in one small respect an exception might be made.
11.0 a.m.
I have tabled an Amendment—No. 18—which is drawn in the narrowest possible terms to except murder, not by shooting, not in the course of theft, but by shooting in the course of theft. It was the narrowest extent that I could devise to meet what I believe to be a very real point. This may seem illogical, and although I do not wish to detain the Committee for very long I would like to put a point to hon. Members, and to put it, in particular, to the sponsors of the Bill and to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary. I do not dissent from a great deal of what was said by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). It was only at the end of his remarks that I thought that he was treading on very dangerous ground and was being singularly unconvincing.
On the whole, I am inclined to agree that it is impossible for anybody to say with certainty that the death penalty is a


uniquely effective deterrent to murder. My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter is equally entitled to say that nobody can prove that it is not. I have always believed it to be essential to demonstrate—whether one demonstrates it by statistics, by inner instincts of by whatever other means—that capital punishment is a uniquely effective deterrent to murder if it is to be retained.
It might therefore seem, since I take this view that to put forward Amendment No. 18 is wholly illogical. That in itself does not worry me very much, because there has never been much logic about this throughout the history of the death penalty. The 1957 Act was illogical, as, I think, everybody now recognises. The situation before the 1957 Act could be held to be utterly illogical to the extent that we hanged people who probably would not have committed a second murder while we retained the lives of some really dangerous people who, if they escaped, would almost certainly have committed another murder. As far as I can see, there has never been any logic in this business.
We must draw a strange balance between the public advantage—the public order and the safety of the citizen—and what we as individuals and Christians believe to be right. If the result in any case, as a result of the weighing of advantage, is illogical, then that cannot be helped. We must face that.
Why have I felt it right to draw the very narrow exception contained in Amendment No. 18? I will explain why and also say why I could not find it possible to support the Amendments in the names of some of my hon. Friends to except from abolition all murders by shooting and all murders committed in the course of theft. Some of my hon. Friends may say, "If you want to retain the death penalty for somebody who, in the course of theft, shoots a householder, policeman or bystander who prevents him from escaping, why will you not go a step further and execute the man who coshes someone on the doorstep in the course of theft?"
There is a real and valid distinction here. As we know, there has been a period during which the number of crimes of violence—probably crimes of violence in pursuance of theft—and particularly

crimes of physical violence, such as the use of coshes, have been on the increase. However, nobody can persuade me that the criminal who coshes an old lady on the doorstep of her home decides to balance nicely in his mind how hard he should hit her by the thought that if he hits her that bit harder she will die and it will become a capital murder while if he hits her a bit less hard it will merely be assault, for which he will go to prison.
If murder in the pursuit of theft as a capital crime has not deterred many of these crimes of violence in pursuance of theft, then capital punishment is not serving as a deterrent to this form of violence. I have always believed that the deterrent to this form of violence—indeed, the only effective deterrent—is the likelihood of getting caught. If that likelihood is overwhelmingly great, then that deterrent is the most effective.
Nevertheless, we are still left with the factor which, out of all the worries that the Bill and the likelihood of its passing have caused to people, remains a factor in a slightly different position from the other factors. It is the one which has worried the police and a great many others; the likelihood that if the death penalty is abolished without exception there will be a greater incentive to the criminal setting out on a robbery to carry a firearm than would otherwise be the case.
I entirely agree with the hon. and learned Member for Northampton that once the firearm is in his possession and once the crisis comes the deterrent effect of capital punishment is probably not very great in deciding whether the man should use the firearm. It is the fact that he has the gun that is the crucial point. However, I am afraid that I differ from the hon. and learned Gentleman in the last part of his speech, in which he sought to show that to make murder by shooting in pursuit of theft a capital crime would encourage robbers to carry guns; that the possession of firearms would be glamourised and that robbers would carry more firearms rather than the reverse happening. I find this proposition too difficult to swallow. I am as little moved by that argument as I am by the thought of my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter opening his front door to a startled vicar with a shotgun in his hand.
I firmly believe that there is real alarm, not only about the risk of more criminals taking firearms with them on criminal jobs but the fear that if the carrying of firearms becomes increasingly prevalent there will be agitation for the police to be armed. This is something which we must all, retentionists and abolitionists alike, try to avoid if we can. That is not to say that such a step would be necessary. But I am afraid that enough people would feel sufficiently strongly about the matter to agree, particularly if there had been enough unfortunate cases, to agitate for the police to be armed and, if there had been such unfortunate cases, the police would perhaps not feel disposed, in the interests of the safety of their companions, to disagree with that agitation.
While I concede to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) and the hon. and learned Member for Northampton the danger of making any exceptions at all once a campaign to abolish capital punishment has been started—and, as I have made it clear, I want capital punishment abolished—I believe that acceptance of Amendment No. 18 would, in the long run, make the abolition of capital punishment more likely, more swift and more probable than if it were not included in the Bill. It is necessary to reassure the public and the police in this respect. I equally believe that it would be in the interest of the criminal, for it would make him think twice about whether or not he will take a gun in his pocket when setting out on the commission of a crime.
This, I consider, would act as a deterrent to the carrying of firearms in the course of crime. If it did act as an effective deterrent here we would find the number of convictions and executions for capital murder so few as to make it obvious that capital punishment was finished and on the way out. But I believe that for a transitional period this provision would be valuable. It would enable the country and the police to assess the progress which we are making in the abolition of other forms of murder.
For this reason, illogical as it may seem, and repugnant as it may seem to the abolitionists and, in particular, to the sponsors of the Bill, it would be right to do this, and I very much hope that the

Home Secretary will bear this in mind during the further stages of the Bill.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Frank Soskice): We are discussing three separate arguments, which I can probably put in correct focus in the following way. It is said, in the first place, "You should retain capital punishment when theft is involved"; it is said, in the second place, "You should retain capital punishment in the case in which shooting or the use of explosive material is involved"; and it is said, in the third place, "You should retain capital punishment when you have a combination of these two elements". That, broadly speaking, is the argument which has been addressed to the Committee and was summarised very forcefully in the speech of the hon. Member for Stratfordon-Avon (Mr. Maude).
Is there a case for it? It depends, I think, very largely on the reasons which actuated an individual hon. Member in his general attitude to the Second Reading of the Bill. One either takes the view that there is something barbarous in capital punishment as such, or one does not. If one takes the view that it is barbarous, one can say to oneself, "There are, unfortunately, certain barbarous things which have to be done in the course of our extraordinary transactions in society and we have to accept them". But I feel confident that those hon. Members who support the Amendments will agree that if we start from a position that the infliction of the death sentence in itself is barbarous, that it offends the conscience and that it has a generally brutalising effect on society, and if we start from the position that it is not just a matter of balance but that the scales are weighed heavily against the infliction of the death sentence, then if we wish to make exceptions to the proposal to abolish the death sentence altogether there has to be an extremely strong case made out for the retention of the exceptions.
Can it be said that there is a strong case for any of these three proposed exceptions? Let us look at the history of Parliament and the country on the general question of the death sentence. I suggest that we have tried to do exactly what those hon. Members who support the Amendment have sought


to do. We have had the Homicide Act on the Statute Book for several years. When it was originally accepted by Parliament and the country, it was on the basis that it represented the best attempt that we could make to select out of the whole panorama of murderous offences those which, for particular reasons, could be stigmatised as being especially appropriate for the retention of the death sentence.
The second conclusion, which practically everyone who has taken part in the debates would accept, is that the Homicide Act in fact will not work. It will work in the sense that it can be enforced, but it has not satisfied the desire of the public or our individual desire for a rational treatment of the subject, because each of the exceptions can be shown to attract such anomalous consequences that it is difficult to justify the retention of that exception.
When one looks at the type of case which attracts the death sentence under the 1957 Act, in its nature it is bound to produce completely inconsistent and discordant results. A man is liable to the death sentence if he puts his hand in the pocket of the corpse and steals 6d. On the other hand, he is not liable to the death sentence if he commits the most murderous and revolting rape. His purpose may have been utterly inhuman and utterly impossible to reconcile with anything which could remotely seem to accord with at least a glimmer of decent feeling. But under the 1957 Act he is not liable to the death sentence. The mere chance that he sees an object fall out of the pocket of his victim, which he picks up and puts in his own pocket, renders him liable to the death sentence.
11.15 a.m.
The whole attitude of the country has been that that is a quite impossible anomaly to accept. Learned counsel and members of the legal profession in the courts have thought it an impossible position to allow to continue. Outside the courts, in the House and elswehere, people have felt that we cannot accept a statute as being part of our law which produces that effect.

Mr. Joseph Hiley: Does not the Home Secretary agree that the case of revolting and disgusting rape and

murder which he has described ought to attract the death penalty?

Sir F. Soskice: That is just the sort of difficulty with which we were faced when discussing the 1957 Act, and it is precisely the difficulty which we face now.

Mr. Hiley: It is not reasonable to make a case out that merely because we made a mistake in 1957 we ought to go on making mistakes today.

Sir F. Soskice: The case would be for not making a mistake in 1957 and equally avoiding making a mistake now.
The difficulty is that if we look at a hundred different murders, in their individual circumstances they differ almost infinitely, and it is impossible to classify them into those which are categorically bad and those which are categorically not so bad. We cannot classify them in any sense which depends on their circumstances.

Mr. Maude: Does not the Home Secretary agree that as it is wholly illogical and impossible to try to classify them by degree of revoltingness or the heinousness of the crime—many of them could not be deterred as they are committed by people who are deranged—the only way to classify them is by the likelihood of success of the method by which they may be stopped or deterred?

Sir F. Soskice: With respect, I do not agree. Whatever form of language one chooses, one runs ultimately into an anomalous result. The House and the country have thought about this for years and have always found themselves up against precisely the same difficulty. It is easy to retail examples. I hesitate to mention individual names, but in this case the individual is no longer alive: Hanratty committed rape and then tried to shoot his unfortunate victim.

Mr. Deputy-Chairman: Order. We are not discussing rape. We are discussing only shooting and murder in furtherance of theft.

Sir F. Soskice: I was about to say that Hanratty then tried to shoot the victim of the rape. If he had stolen 6d. from her he would have been liable to the death penalty under the 1957 Act, but raping her and shooting her did not involve it. I am sorry, I have got that


wrong, but I will not go into the anomalous situation because it complicates these matters considerably and there is endless inquisition into individual cases. It is bad practice. I am simply putting to the Committee the general point that we cannot classify different kinds of murder.
We are at the moment considering the death sentence. I know that no one in the Committee would for a second argue that we should retain more barbarous forms of penalty, but suppose we were discussing some of the medieval penalties which were far crueller and more barbarous than this and which we rejected—the thumbscrew, the rack, and so on—because it was revolting to the conscience. Surely we could not say that we should retain it for some particular purpose.

Sir Kenneth Pickthorn: I would not pose as a great expert, but my recollection is that the thumbscrew and the rack were never imposed by law. The way in which they came to be used was that there was no legal way of preventing the Sovereign in what was regarded as urgent cases from using those devices. There was never any law or statute which permitted or did not permit, or regulated the use of the thumbscrew or the rack and so on.

Sir F. Soskice: It is always very dangerous to look back to the past in the presence of an eminent historian. No one in this House would dream of saying, as some hon. Members are saying of the death penalty, that there is some sort of offence for which the thumbscrew or the rack should be retained. We would start from the position, which I should have thought the proper position now, of saying that we want to get rid of it because it is a barbarous obscenity. I should have thought that we should start from exactly the same premise in talking about the death penalty.
Some hon. Members do not have the same feeling about it. I can understand them saying, "Let us retain it for individual types of murder if we can classify them on a logical basis", but I should have thought that they would go further and say, "Let us repeal the 1957 Act and go back to the position as it was before that when the death penalty was the proper penalty for every murder." One either thinks the death penalty is a

barbarous obscenity or one does not. Some people think that it is a better deterrent than others and say let us retain it, but if one thinks it is barbarous I should have thought it very difficult to say that it should be retained for exceptions unless the strongest possible case can be made for them.
I have tried to indicate some of the anomalies in consequence of retaining it for those exceptions. In the case of shooting, the evidence on page 57 of the document "Murder" which we have looked at on a number of occasions in this Committee, is that shooting is carried out by someone who is mentally unbalanced. Very often it is the kind of domestic tragedy we have considered. To try to retain it for that case would mean retaining it for cases in which a large number of those concerned would be people of an abnormal type who would not normally be amenable to the death sentence.
When we look at this particular proposal we see that it would isolate the person who has shot another person and that is getting closer to the bank robber. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) mentioned one kind of bank robbery in which the robbery was accompanied by a shooting almost on the same morning as an execution for exactly the same thing. His argument was that the people who do this deviate from the normal type of person and that therefore we cannot predicate that they are deterred by the same sort of considerations which deter the ordinary sort of person. I should have thought he was amply right. That was the conclusion of the Royal Commission when it considered how far it could be said that it was shown by figures and experience in other countries that the death sentence is a deterrent. It is not certain and one cannot draw certain conclusions.
I got the Hanratty case wrong. He was executed because there was a double murder. That was why he was liable to the death sentence, but if he had committed rape and murdered his victim he would not have been. That is relevant to the second Amendment which would apply the death sentence in cases of shooting. I think I am right in saying that that was why he was liable under the 1957 Act. If one looks at these proposals one sees that they are


open to precisely the sort of objections which the various exceptions in the 1957 Act are open to. When we return to the task of trying to work out a logical scheme of keeping out of the abolition proposal a particular type of offence we find, as was found by experience after the 1957 Act, that we simply cannot do it on any logical basis. Therefore I hope the Committee will not accept any of these proposals.
I come back to what I regard as the fundamental question which one should ask oneself when one considers these sort of Amendments, which is, Do you think the death penalty is something barbarous in itself? If one does one is 100 miles away—even if one is prepared to overlook the illogicalities of the particular proposals—from being able to reach a conclusion soundly that a case is made for making an exception to the general rule that we in this country will not tolerate a legal process which results in the doing to death deliberately of a human being. We can deal with the matter in other ways just as effectively, and it is brutalising to society that this should be done in its name. It is high time we got rid of it, and I hope that the Committee will reject the Amendment.

Mr. Peter Bessell: The right hon. and learned Gentleman emphasised the question of rape as against theft arid pointed oust that rape is a particularly vile type of crime.

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. We cannot pursue rape at the moment.

Mr. Edward Gardner: The Home Secretary said that hanging is a barbarous obscenity. I think it only fair to add that he apparently took the view that not everyone would be likely to adopt those particular words in describing hanging.

Sir F. Soskice: What I meant to say was that people differ about this; people have different views. I intended to say that this is my view and, I think, the view of those in favour of abolition of the death sentence. The conclusion I was seeking to draw was that if one starts from the fundamental premise and so regards it, as abolitionists, as they are collectively called, do consider it, unless

there is a most cogent reason for exception it must go for good, it must go completely and absolutely and not be retained in part.

Mr. Gardner: The Home Secretary was clear. No hon. Member in the Committee had difficulty in understanding what he was saying. I was merely pointing out that he used words to describe hanging as "barbarous obscenity" and he said that they were not the words that everyone would use. I submit that they are highly coloured and emotional words to describe hanging. If he is to adopt language of that kind to describe hanging, perhaps hon. Members will forgive me when I say that some of us would choose language of that kind to describe murder itself from which the punishment flows.

11.30 a.m.

Sir F. Soskice: I am sorry to interrupt again. A great many abolitionists would say that the one thing we do not want to do is the very thing that the murderer does. We dislike putting people to death. Therefore, we wish to draw a distinction in our own proceedings from that kind of conduct for which we think that murderers are worthy of the highest possible condemnation.

Mr. Gardner: Of course, I understand that. That is a view with which I sympathise. The Home Secretary went on to say that if there are to be exceptions to the abolition of capital punishment those exceptions must be proved, and they would be exceptions only in the strongest possible cases. I suggest that one of the exceptions that falls clearly within this category which the Home Secretary has defined is murder in the course or furtherance of theft. Most of us in the Committee, after the experience we have had of trying to persuade the Committee to accept a number of Amendments, all of which have been rejected, are not over-optimistic about the Committee's accepting this Amendment. Like all the other Amendments which have been rejected, this Amendment illuminates in stark outline the grave weakness of the Bill which seeks to abolish capital punishment, namely, its failure to replace with any other adequate punishment the punishment that it hopes to abolish.

The Chairman: Order. We shall be discussing that later.

Mr. Gardner: I do not want to go outside the boundaries of the debate. I had intended to return within them immediately, and I shall do so now by saying that the arguments which have been adduced in support of the Amendments which have been rejected, and indeed the argument which has been advanced in support of the Amendments which the Committee is now considering, all derive their vigour from the absence of any alternative and satisfactory penalty to the death penalty which the Bill seeks to abolish.
The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) told us that, in his view, the person who commits murder is not a normal person. With that view most of us would agree. What surprised me—and I hope that it surprised most hon. Members—is that the hon. and learned Gentleman did not go beyond that and say what I would have thought is obvious, that not only are people who commit murder in the ordinary way not normal people, but that those who break into houses and steal are, in the vast majority of cases, not normal people.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman want to hang them all?

Mr. Gardner: I am arguing, I hope not without effect, for the view that, where there is a possibility for the law to put between the householder and the housebreaker a protection, which I firmly believe the death penalty is, it is wholly irresponsible to remove that shield and protection without attempting to put something effective in its place.
May I refer, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) referred at the last sitting of the Committee, to the Home Office Research Unit Report, "Murder". This Report shows in paragraph 73 that most cases of capital murder are committed by persons with criminal records and that most of the convictions which those who commit capital murder have had recorded against them have been for larceny and breaking and entering houses.
This seems by itself at least to flash the red danger signal to anyone who is considering removing the death penalty

without putting in its place what we submit is necessary as an adequate punishment. There is no more frequent crime than housebreaking. Any night, and indeed any day, but particularly any night, one of us in our homes may be awakened by noises coming from downstairs, or from the next room, or, it may be, in the room where we are sleeping. At this moment of time we can be reasonably certain that the person who has come into our home, in order presumably to steal from us, will be a person between the ages of roundabout 17 to 25.

Sir Stephen McAdden: My hon. and learned Friend has indicated that the rejection of this Amendment, or at any rate the discussion of the Amendment, should be a red danger signal to those who want to remove the death penalty. Would he not agree that the rejection of the Amendment would be a green signal for those engaged in the commission of crimes? Would my hon. and learned Friend address himself to the question of the rejection of the Amendment providing a possible incentive to murder?

Mr. Gardner: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. This is a point I want to develop. I had intended to come to it, because I think that it is perhaps as important as, if not more important than, the point I am trying to develop at the moment. I am saying that the housebreaker who comes into our house will probably be between 17 and 25. That may or may not be important. It may or may not be a comfort to the householder. But one thing is also certain at the moment. The chances are—indeed, the overwhelming chances are—that the person who has broken into our house will not be carrying a weapon of any kind. Certainly he will not be armed with a pistol. He will be a man who will be unlikely to make a fatal attack on a householder if he is challenged.
If the Bill goes through and abolishes the death penalty without replacing that death penalty with any adequate and substantial punishment, what is to happen to the householder who has to get up in the middle of the night to investigate a disturbance in his house by someone who has broken in? Will he then have the security of knowing, as he has


at the moment, that the overwhelming chances are that the invader is unarmed? Or will he have the new fear that, because the person who has come into his house no longer has any fear of the ultimate penalty—the death penalty—that person might take the chance of bringing in with him a pistol and using that pistol if the householder stands between him and his liberty?
If these seem to be fanciful, irresponsible, arguments, something brought up as an illustration of what might happen in a remote contingency, may I bring to the attention of the Committee the Report of the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment 1949–53 and ask hon. Members to consider for a few moments that well-repeated paragraph—paragraph 61—where the evidence of police officers and others who might be regarded as being well-qualified to speak on this aspect of the value of the death penalty is set out? I do not want to weary the Committee by reading the whole of the paragraph—it is fairly lengthy—but I hope I shall he forgiven if I draw to the Committee's attention, because of its relevance to these Amendments, the first part of paragraph 61.
The Committee reported:
Of more importance was the evidence of the representatives of the police and prison service. From them we received virtually unanimous evidence, in both England and Scotland, to the effect that they were convinced of the uniquely deterrent value of capital punishment in its effects on professional criminals.
Let it be said at once that these Amendments which we are now considering relate to the acts of professional criminals. These are the people whose activities we fear. Here in the Royal Commission's Report one has a reference to the unanimous conviction of people who might well be supposed to know better than most others that the death penalty had a uniquely deterrent effect on professional criminals.
The Report went on to say:
On these the fear of the death penalty may not only have the direct effect of deterring them from using lethal violence to accomplish their purpose, or to avoid detection by silencing the victim of their crime, or to resist arrest. It may also have the indirect effect of deterring them from carrying a weapon lest the temptation to use it in a tight corner should prove irresistible.

This is the very situation that we are considering now. This is one of the basic reasons why we argue that we cannot with safety abolish the death penalty for crimes of this kind unless we put in place of the death penalty some other punishment which we can regard as being a substantial, satisfactory and wholly adequate alternative.

Sir F. Soskice: To got a right view of what was the real opinion of the Royal Commission, has not one in the first place got to read the very tentative expression of opinion later in that paragraph, namely:
It seems to us inherently probable that, if capital punishment has any unique value as a deterrent, it is here that its effect would be chiefly felt and here that its value to the community would be greatest."?
One should read that in the light of the Commission's final conclusion in paragraph 68, which I do not want to read at length, but it is a paragraph in which the Commission makes clear that its overall view is that it is impossible to draw any safe conclusion as to the value of the death penalty as a deterrent.

Mr. Gardner: I quite agree. I had not finished with paragraph 61. It is only fair that one should consider the whole picture. The Report goes on to say:
Moreover we received no evidence that the abolition of capital punishment in other countries had in fact led to the consequences apprehended by our witnesses in this country; though it is fair to add that any comparison between Great Britain and most of these countries, with the exception of Belgium, is vitiated by the differences in social and industrial conditions and in density of population.
Finally the paragraph says:
For the professional criminal imprisonment is a normal professional risk, of which the idea is familiar, if not the experience, and which for him carries no stigma. It is natural to suppose that for such people (except the rare gangster, who constantly risks his life in affrays with the police and other gangs) the death penalty comes into an entirely different category from other forms of punishment.
11.45 a.m.
It is perfectly true that this Report does not come to a conclusion—and this could be argued both ways—that the death penalty is decisive as a deterrent. Indeed, the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) said this morning that he did not know whether the death penalty deters anyone. It may well be that that expresses a view that is held


by many people in the country at large and in this Committee in particular. The hon. and learned Member went on to say "I am not denying that it is possible"—in other words, that it might deter.
If by these Amendments—and I am particularly interested in Amendment No. 5 which seeks to retain the death penalty for murder done in the course or the furtherance of theft—we could hope to save the life of one householder—and I hope this will be the view of the whole Committee—could anyone deny the value of the Amendment or the essential character of the Amendment as part of the Bill? To say that if we accepted the Amendment some poor burglar who shoots a householder will have to suffer the supreme penalty and that is something that this Committee cannot tolerate, does not seem to me in any way to counterbalance the view that an innocent householder is worthy of the best protection that the law can afford.

Mr. Paget: Mr. Paget rose—

Mr. Gardner: I will give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman in a moment. I should just like to finish this part of my argument.
I submit that one of the best protections that the law can afford the householder, unless the Bill is going to be altered fundamentally to provide a proper alternative to captial punishment, is to adopt this Amendment.

The Chairman: Mr. Bessell.

Mr. Gardner: I had merely resumed my seat, Dr. King, to give way to the hon. and learned Member for Northampton who indicated that he wished to intervene.

The Chairman: I will not deprive the hon. and learned Member for Billericay (Mr. Gardner) of his right to continue, but apparently the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has decided not to intervene.

Mr. Gardner: I shall not detain the Committee for more than a few moments.
I think it only right to draw attention to a case which was heard at Leeds Assizes recently. I have no doubt that the Home Secretary will recollect the circumstances of the case. I do not want to mention names, but he will, no doubt,

recognise the case. It concerned a garage attendant who was murdered by a number of people who beat him up, put his head in some water and drowned him, and then robbed him in the course of murder. Of course, it was capital murder. One of those who took part in this murder afterwards spoke to the police to the effect "Well, of course, since the Bill"—that is this Bill—"has come before the House of Commons we are more likely to take a chance." That is a view which was expressed by someone who was charged with murder, a professional criminal.
The expert evidence that was given before the Royal Commission, although it certainly did not enable the Royal Commission to come to a firm conclusion one way or the other, added to the evidence of the kind which I have just indicated, cannot leave us other than grossly uneasy about the prospect of exposing the citizen and the householder in particular to the perils which may well arise—we all appreciate the danger—if the death penalty is abolished for murder done in the course or furtherance of theft.
The very fact that there is a danger should be sufficient in my submission to persuade the Committee to not only consider seriously Amendment No. 5 and the other Amendments which go with it but to adopt that Amendment, because we shall be at our peril as a Committee and as a House of Commons if we neglect the opportunity which we have now of giving the best protection we can to innocent people who otherwise might be put in fatal danger.

Mr. Bessell: There can be arguments for supporting a great many of the Amendments. I have made no secret of the fact that I am anxious to see the abolition of capital punishment as quickly as may be possible. I have said this previously in this Committee. Nevertheless, I have felt and I still feel that there are one or two exceptions which should be considered and which I believe the Committee would still be wise to accept. In particular, Amendment No. 18, in the name of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude), must appeal to everyone who takes a rational view of this subject.
It must appeal first and foremost because it is not the view of an extremist who desires to retain capital punishment for all forms of murder. It must appeal,


secondly, because although the Bill is entitled Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Bill" nevertheless it does not totally abolish capital punishment in this country. We still retain capital punishment for crimes of treason. Consequently, if we are prepared to accept that there is an exception it is surely reasonable for us to accept that there may be other exceptions also.
In the case of murder committed in furtherance of the crime of theft we are dealing with a man who sets out with a cold-blooded intention to acquire other people's property on his behalf. In doing it, if he feels that he is in danger of being apprehended he will not hesitate to shoot the person who either prevents his committing his crime successfully or seeks to apprehend him after he has committed the crime. We are not dealing with the case of a man who is acting upon a lunatic impulse or with the case of a man who sets out to commit a crime without any intention of murder. We are dealing here with a man who is quite willing and prepared to murder his victim if there is no other way of avoiding apprehension and punishment.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: But only by shooting.

Mr. Bessell: Yes, but I do not see that there is any conflict here. If a man is going out to commit a crime, to rob a bank or a household, the normal weapon used is a firearm and we shall be discussing later in the House the Firearms Bill which has been introduced by the Government to extend restrictions on the possession and use of firearms.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Will not the only effect of the Amendment be to persuade criminals of that kind to take a dagger instead of a revolver?

Mr. Bessell: I have only the greatest of respect for the hon. Member's opinions but I do not think that that is a logical answer to the arguments which I am putting before the Committee. The man who comes out with a dagger or a bludgeon will not be able to use that quickly and effectively in the same way as he can use a revolver. If he is in a position where he is being attacked by a number of police officers or private individuals he can use the revolver quickly and effectively and in all probability may

succeed in stopping an attack upon him without even using the weapon, whereas the man who has a dagger will be able to use it on only one assailant and probably will not have the opportunity of doing that.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Suppose that he does. The hon. Member knows perfectly well that there are a number of cases of murders of policemen by stabbing. What the hon. Member seeks to do is to say that if a man in the course of theft, perhaps seeking to escape or in some other way, kills by shooting he is to be hanged but if he does exactly the same thing for exactly the same purpose with some other weapon he is not to be hanged. Is there any sense in such a proposition?

Mr. David Steel: Mr. David Steel (Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles rose—

The Chairman: Order. If the hon. Member wants to catch my eye he must attempt to do so. We cannot have an intervention upon an intervention.

Mr. Bessell: In reply to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman), I can appreciate the logic of his argument that it seems strange that we should seek to retain capital punishment for a man who carries a weapon and shoots a policeman and at the same time abolish it in the case of a man who stabs or uses some other weapon to commit a murder. But the fact remains that it is the view of Her Majesty's Government that the increase in crime today can be curbed to some extent by restricting the possession of firearms, and this I call in aid in my argument as evidence of the need to include this Amendment.
I believe that not only are the Government completely right in this but that public opinion is entirely behind them, because there is real anxiety about the number of crimes of violence which involve the use of firearms. The number of these crimes is on the increase. I cannot think that this is the time to remove something which may well be a deterrent against crime of that sort. It is true to say that the House of Commons has responsibility for public safety, but we also have responsibility for the peace of mind of the public at large. I believe that there is an anxiety, founded


very largely upon fact, that if the death penalty is abolished completely and if we do it now and in total there will be a further increase in the type of crime which involves the use of firearms.
We have already had a long discussion on the responsibility which we have for the safety of police officers and I realise that I cannot disgress this morning by enlarging upon that. At the same time, the terms of this Amendment would provide the protection for which the police have asked, if not in full then at least in a very large measure. This is another reason why I believe that in exercising our responsibility for public safety we must bear in mind not only the safety of the police but also of those people who, acting on their own initiative and often with great courage, are prepared to attempt to prevent a theft being committed and are prepared to go unarmed into the battle against the felon and in so doing risk their lives.
12 noon.
If we do not accept Amendment No. 18 and the Bill goes through in its present form, the effect will be to discourage many people who might otherwise be willing to risk their own safety in apprehending a criminal. They will feel, perhaps quite reasonably, that the man they are seeking to prevent from committing a crime may well be armed and will have no fear about using his weapon against them. One cannot expect people to have the same degree of responsibility or sense of public duty if they feel that the one deterrent which they believe, rightly or wrongly, is effective has been totally and irrevocably removed.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Does not it matter whether rightly or wrongly?

Mr. Bessell: Not in this case, I suggest, because, while it is the task of the House of Commons to do everything it can to advance the understanding of the general public about matters of this kind, it is our task also to educate people and to take them along, so to speak, step by step. One of the most distressing features of the whole of this debate is that we receive either the total abolitionist point of view or the total retentionist point of view, and we do not get a fair balance in these matters. This is one of the reasons why the speech

made this morning by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon appealed to me so much. If I may say so, it presented a very balanced approach to this whole subject.
Why should we be in such a hurry over the total abolition of capital punishment, with the single exception of retaining it for crimes of treason? Why is it not possible for us to follow public opinion, to allay public anxiety and to accede to the requests which have been made unofficially by the police and, for example, by prison officers? Why have we to take things at such a rate? There is no doubt that, ultimately, capital punishment will be totally abolished. It may well be that the sooner that day comes the better. But the fact remains that, at present, public opinion is not educated to the belief that this is the time to do it. In my view, it is lamentable that Her Majesty's Government have chosen to introduce this Bill—

The Chairman: Order. I have been waiting for the hon. Gentleman to get back to the Amendment.

Mr. Bessell: I apologise, Dr. King. I realise that I was overstepping the point.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: The hon. Gentleman supported the Second Reading.

Mr. Bessell: Yes, I voted for the Second Reading, but to vote for the Second Reading is not to vote finally for the Bill. I hope that certain Amendments will be carried, and I still cannot see—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman must take note of what the Chair says. He must address himself to the Amendment.

Mr. Bessell: I beg your pardon, Dr. King. I have got myself very far from it, but, in mitigation, may I say that I was interrupted by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne and I was seeking to reply to his comments.
If we accept the Amendment and retain capital punishment in the case of a murder done by shooting in the course of or furtherance of theft, we shall go a very long way to meet the anxiety which is felt by a very wide section of the public, an anxiety which, however unrealistic it may appear to the total


abolitionist, is none the less very real to those who entertain it and for whom we have a definite measure of responsibility. The fact that some of us do not believe that this is necessarily an effective deterrent does not alter the fact that the vast majority of people believe that it is a deterrent in the case covered by Amendment No. 18. For that reason, if for no other, we have a duty to accept the Amendment. I sincerely hope that

it will be considered again by the Home Secretary and that the Committee will be prepared to accept it without a Division.

Mr. Paget: Mr. Paget rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 166, Noes 97.

Division No. 94.]
AYES
[12.6 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Hannan, William
Newens, Stan


Aldritt, Walter
Harper, Joseph
Oakes, Gordon


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
O'Malley, Brian


Armstrong, Ernest
Hazell, Bert
Oswald, Thomas


Atkinson, Norman
Heffer, Eric S.
Padley, Walter


Bacon, Miss Alice
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Paget, R. T.


Barnett, Joel
Horner, John
Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S.E.)


Bence, Cyril
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Parkin, B. T.


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Howie, W.
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Bin[...]s, John
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Pentland, Norman


Bishop, E. S.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Perry, Ernest G.


Blackburn, F.
Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)
Popplewell, Ernest


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S.W.)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Prentice, R. E.


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Rees, Merlyn


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Reynolds, C. W.


Braidock, Mrs. E. M.
Jackson, Colin
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Brown, Hugh, D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Rose, Paul B.


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; Fbury)
Jones, Dan (Burniey)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Buchanan, Richard
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Rowland, Christopher


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Sheldon, Robert


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Short,Rt.Hn. E.(N'c'tle-on-Tyne,C.)


Coleman, Donald
Kelley, Richard
Silkin, John (Deptford)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Kenyon, Clifford
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Dalyell, Tam
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Skeffington, Arthur


Darling, George
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lawson, George
Small, William


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Snow, Julian


de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey
Lee, Mrs. Jennie (Cannock)
Solomons, Henry


Diamond, John
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Soskice, Rt. Hn. Sir Frank


Dodds, Norman
Lipton, Marcus
Steel, D. M. S. (Roxburgh)


Doig, Peter
Lomas, Kenneth
Stones, William


Driberg, Tom
Lubbock, Eric
Swingler, Stephen


Duffy, A. E. P.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McBride, Neil
Thornton, Ernest


English, Michael
McCann, J.
Thorpe, Jeremy


Ens[...]r, David
MacColl, James
Urwin, T. W.


Fernyhough, E.
MacDermot, Niall
Wainwright, Edwin


Finch, Harold (Bedwellty)
Mackenzie, Gregor ([...]Rutherg[...]en)



Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Fletcher, Sir Eric (Islington, E.)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Wallace, George


Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Watkins, Tudor


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)
Whitlock, William


Ford, Ben
Manuel, Archie
Wilkins, W. A.


Ga[...]pern, Sir Myer
Mapp, Charles
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Garrow, A.
Mason, Roy
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Go[...]rlay, Harry
Mendelson, J. J.
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Grey Charles
Mikardo, Ian
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Millan, Bruce
Winterbottom R E


Griffiths, Rt, Hn. James (Llanelly)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A


Gri[...]ond, Rt. Hn. J.
Molloy, William
Woof, Robert


Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Molloy, William
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Ha[...]ilton, James (Bothwell)
Monslow, Walter



Ha[...]ilton, William (West Fife)
Morris, John (Aberavon)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Ha[...]ling, William (Woolwich, W.)
Mulley,Rt.Hn. Frederick(SheffieldPk)
Mr. Orme and Mr. Crawshaw.




NOES


Agnew, commander Sir Peter
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.Sir Walter


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; F[...]m)
Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry


Astor, John
Bessell, Peter
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)


Atkins, Humphrey
Bossom, Hn. Clive
Buck, Antony


Aw[...]ry, Daniel
Box, Donald
Chichester-Clark, R.


Batsford, Brian
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)




Cooke, Robert
Jennings, J. C.
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Corfield, F. V.
Jopling, Michael
Ridsdale, Julian


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Kitson, Timothy
Roots, William


Dance, James
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Sharples, Richard


Dean, Paul
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Sinclair, Sir George


Drayson, G. B.
Loveys, Walter H.
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Eden, Sir John
McAdden, Sir Stephe[...]
Studholme, Sir Henry


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
McLaren, Martin
Summers, Sir Spencer


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
McMaster, Stanley
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Emery, Peter
Maude, Angus
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow,Cathcart)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Temple, John M.


Gardner, Edward
Mills, Peter (Torrington)



Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Miscampbell, Norman
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon,S.)


Glyn, Sir Richard
Mitchell, David
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter


Grant-Ferris, R.
Monro, Hector
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
More, Jasper
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)
Murton, Oscar
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Whitelaw, William


Hastings, Stephen
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Hendry Forbes
Peel, John
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hiley, Joseph
Percival, Ian
Wise A R


Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Pickthorn, Rt. Hn. Sir Kenneth
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Pounder, Rafton



Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Price, David (Eastleigh)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Howard, Hn. G. R. (St. Ives)
Pym, Francis
Mr. Mawby and Mr. Scott-Hopkins.


Hunt, John (Bromley)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

Question put accordingly, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 78, Noes 180.

Division No. 95.]
AYES
[12.15 p.m.


Agnew, Commander Sir Peter
Glyn, Sir Richard
Percival, Ian


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Grant-Ferris, R.
Pickthorn, Rt. Hn. Sir Kenneth


Atkins, Humphrey
Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)
Pounder, Rafton


Batsford, Brian
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Pym, Francis


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Hastings, Stephen
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Bessell, Peter
Hendry, Forbes
Ridsdale, Julian


Bossom, Hn. Clive
Hiley, Joseph
Roots, William


Box, Donald
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Sharples, Richard


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Sinclair, Sir George


Bromley-Davenport,Lt.Col.SlrWalter
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Howard, Hn. G. R. (St. Ives)
Studholme Sir Henry


Buck, Antony
Hunt, John (Bromley)
Summers, Sir Spen[...]er


Chichester-Clark, R.
Jennings, J. C.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow,Cathcart)


Cooke, Robert
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Cunningham, Sir Knox
McMaster, Stanley
Temple, John M.


Dance, James
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon,S.)


Dean, Paul
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter


Drayson, G. B.
Mitchell, David
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Eden, Sir John
Monro, Hector
Whitelaw, William


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
More, Jasper
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Elliott, R.W.(N'[...]'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Murton, Oscar
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Wise, A. R.


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Osborn, John (Hallam)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gardner, Edward
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Mr. Mawby and Mr. Scott-Hopkins.


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Peel, John





NOES


Abse, Leo
Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Allaun, Frank, (Salford, C.)
Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Emery, Peter


Aldritt, Walter
Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
English, Michael


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; Fbury)
Ensor, David


Armstrong, Ernest
Buchanan, Richard
Evans, Ioan (Birmingham, Yardley)


Atkinson, Norman
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Fernyhough, E.


Awdry, Daniel
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Finch, Harold (Bedwellty)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Coleman, Donald
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Barnett, Joel
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Fletcher, Sir Eric (Islington, E.)


Bence, Cyril
Dalyell, Tam
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Darling George
Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)


Binns, John
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)


Bishop, E. S.
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Ford, Ben


Blackburn, F.
de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey
Freeson, Reginald


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Lelcs S.W.)
Diamond, John
Galpern, Sir Myer


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Dodds, Norman
Garrow, A.


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Doig, Peter
Gourlay, Harry


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Driberg, Tom
Grey, Charles


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Duffy, A. E. P.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)




Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Rose, Paul B.


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
McBride Neil
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Gunter, Rt. Hn. Ft. J.
McCann, J.
Rowland, Christopher


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
MacColl, James
Sheldon, Robert


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
MacDermot, Niall
Short,Rt.Hn.E.(N 'c'tle-on-Tyne.C.)


Ha[...]ling, William (Woolwich, W.)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Silkin, John (Deptford)


Hannan, William
MacPherson, Malcolm
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Harper, Joseph
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Skeffington, Arthu[...]


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Haz[...]ll, Bert
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Small, William


Heffer, Eric S.
Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)
Snow, Julian


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Manuel, Archie
Solomons, Henry


Ho[...]er, John
Mapp, Charles
Soskice, Rt. Hn. Sir Frank


Ho[...]arth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Mason, Roy
Steel, D. M. S. (Roxburgh)


Ho[...]ie, W.
Mendelson, J, J,
Storehouse, John


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stones, William


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Mikardo, Ian
Swingler, Stephen


Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)
Millan, Bruce
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Hyrd, H. (Accrington)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Thornton, Ernest


Hyrd, John (Attercliffe)
Miscampbell, Norman
Thorpe, Jeremy


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Molloy, William
Urwin, T. W.


Jackson, Colin
Monslow, Walter
Varley, Eric G.


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Wainwright, Edwin


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Mulley,Rt.Hn.Fre[...]erick(Sheffi[...]ldPK)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Newens, Stan
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Johnson Smith, G.
Oakes, Gordon
Wallace George


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
O'Malley, Brian
Watkins, Tudor


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Oswald, Thomas
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Paget, R. T.
Whitlock, William


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S.E.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Jopling, Michael
Parkin, B. T.
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Kenyon Clifford
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Pentland, Norman
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Perry, Ernest G.
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Lawson, George
Popplewell, Ernest
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Prentice, R. E.
Winterbottom, R. E.


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rees, Merlyn
Woof, Robert


Lipton, Marcus
Reyno[...]ds, G. W.
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Lornas, Kenneth
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)



Loveys, Walter H.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lubbock, Eric
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Mr. Orme and Mr. Crawshaw.

Amendment proposed: In page 1, line 5, after "murder", insert:
except for any murder by shooting or by causing an explosion".—[Sir J. Hobson.]

Question put. That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 76 Noes 180.

Division No. 96.]
AYES
[12.25 p.m.


Agnew, Commander Sir Peter
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Pounder, Rafton


All[...]son, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Pym, Francis


Atkins, Humphrey
Hastings, Stephen
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Got &amp; Fhm)
Hendry, Forbes
Ridsdale, Julian


Bossom, Hn. Clive
Hiley, Joseph
Roots, William


Box, Donald
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Sharples, Richard


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Sinclair, Sir George


Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.SirWalter
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Howard, Hn. G. R. (St. Ives)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Buck, Antony
Hunt, John (Bromley)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Chichester-Clark, R.
Lambton, Viscount
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow,Cathcart)


Cooke, Robert
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Cunningham, Sir Knox
McMaster, Stanley
Temple, John M.


Dance, James
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Dean, Paul
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter


Eden, Sir John
Mitchell, David
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Monro, Hector
Whitelaw, William


Elliott, R. W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
More, Jasper
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Flotcher-Couke, Charles (Darwen)
Murton, Oscar
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Wise, A. R.


Gardner, Edward
Osborn, John (Hallam)



Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Glyn, Sir Richard
Peel, John 
Mr. Mawby and Mr. Scott-Hopkins.


Giant-Ferris, R.
Percival, Ian



Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)
Pickthorn, Rt. Hn. Sir Kenneth





Abse, Leo
Harper, Joseph
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Allaun, Frank (Salford E.)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mulley,Rt.Hn.Frederick(SheffieldPk)


Aldritt, Walter
Hazell, Bert
Newens, Stan


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Heffer, Eric S.
Oakes, Gordon


Armstrong, Ernest
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
O'Malley, Brian


Atkinson, Norman
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Oswald, Thomas


Awdry, Daniel
Horner, John
Paget, R. T.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S.E.)


Barnett, Joel
Howie, W.
Parkin, B. T.


Bell, Ronald
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Bence, Cyril
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pentland, Norman


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)
Perry, Ernest G.


Bessell, Peter
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Popplewell, Ernest


Binns, John
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Prentice, R. E.


Bishop, E. S.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Blackburn, F.
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Rees, Merlyn


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics S.W.)
Jackson, Colin
Reynolds, G. W.


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Rose, Paul B.


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Johnson Smith, G. (East Grinstead)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rowland, Christopher


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Sheldon, Robert


Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Jones,Rt.Hn.SirElwyn(w.Ham,S.)
Short,Rt.Hn.E.(N'c'tle-on-Tyne,C.)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; Fbury)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Silkin, John (Deptford)


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Jones, T. w. (Merioneth)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Coieman, Donald
Jopling, Michael
Skeffington, Arthur


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Kenyon, Clifford
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Dalyell Tam
Kerr, Mrs. Ann (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Small, William


Darling, George
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)



Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lawson, George
Solomons, Henry


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Soskice, Rt. Hn. Sir Frank


de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Diamond, John
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Stonehouse, John


Dodds, Norman
Lipton, Marcus
Stones, William


Doig, Peter
Lomas, Kenneth
Swingler, Stephen


Dribsrg, Tom
Loughlin, Charles
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Duffy, Dr. A. E. P.
Loveys, Walter H. 
Thornton, Ernest


Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
Lubbock, Eric
Thorpe, Jeremy


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Maben, Dr. J. Dickson
Urwin, T. W.


English, Michael
McBride, Neil
Varley, Eric G.


Evans, Ioan (Birmingham, Yardley)
McCann, J.
Wainwright, Edwin


Fernyhough, E.
MacColl, James
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Finch, Harold (Bedwellty)
MacDermot, Niall
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Wallace, George


Fletcher, Sir Eric (Islington, E.)
Mackie, George Y. (C'ness &amp; S'land)
Watkins Tudor


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Whitlock William


Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Mahon Peter (Preston, s.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Ford, Ben
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Freeson, Reginald
Manuel, Archie
Williams, Albert (Abertillery)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mapp, Charles
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Carroty, A.
Mason, Roy
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Grey, C, Harry

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Grey, Charles
Mendelson, J. J.
Winterbottom, R. E. 


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Mikardo, Ian
Woof, Robert


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Milian, Bruce
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)



Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Miscampbell, Norman
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.)
Molloy, William
Mr. Orme and Mr. Crawshaw.


Hannan, William
Monslow, Walter

Mr. Maude: On a point of order. May I respectfully ask you, Dr. King, to give me the opportunity to move Amendment No. 18, so that the Committee may have a Division on it? This Amendment received some support in the debate and I think that it is generally agreed that it is quite different from and much narrower than the two on which we have just divided. For example, it is the only one which I wish to support.

The Chairman: I understand the hon. Gentleman's difficulty. If he had raised

this matter when the Committee decided at the beginning of the debate to accept my suggestion about which Amendments should be divided upon, I might have had the opportunity of considering it. I am afraid that I cannot do so now.
We now come to another group of Amendments. With Amendment No. 9, in page 1, line 7, leave out "sentenced" and insert:
liable at the discretion of the court",
we shall take Amendments Nos. 10 and 11, in line 7, leave out "sentenced to imprisonment for life" and insert:


imprisoned for such period as the court may direct and shall not be released by the Secretary of State pursuant to the provisions contained in the Prisons Act 1952 before the expiration of such period except with the leave of the court
and in line 7, leave out "life" and insert: a period of not less than 25 years unless a court in its discretion orders otherwise
on which I shall be willing to consider a Division and Amendment No. 13, in line 7, at end insert:
(2) On sentencing any person on a charge of murder to imprisonment for life the court shall at the same time declare the period which it recommends to the Secretary of State as the minimum period which in its view should elapse before the Secretary of State orders the release of that person on licence under section 27 of the Prison Act 1952.
on which I shall be willing to consider a Division, and Amendments Nos. 15 and 16, in line 14, leave out "life" and insert:
such period as the court shall direct".
and in line 23, leave out "life" and insert:
such period as the court shall direct
We shall be taking Amendment No. 17 separately. That is, in line 7, at end insert:
Such a sentence shall be of indefinite duration subject only to the exercise of the prerogative of mercy".

Sir John Hobson: I beg to move, in page 1, line 7, to leave out "sentenced" and to insert:
liable at the discretion of the court".
This group of Amendments brings us to a very different aspect of the Bill, for we have now completed discussion of all the Amendments which were selected and which might have retained the death penalty in respect of particular offences. We have now reached a stage in the Bill at which for no murder is there to be a capital offence, and the question of the alternative and how it is to be dealt with now arises.
The purpose of the Amendment is to see that responsibility for fixing the real sentence which a murderer serves shall rest with the judges and not with Ministers, in other words, that it shall be part of the duty of the courts and not part of the duty of the Executive and civil servants advising the Home Secretary to

decide what is the real sentence which a convicted murderer shall serve.
Amendment No. 9 is in the same form as many other provisions which create a life penalty for serious crime and it gives the court the right to decide whether, in fact, it will pass a life sentence or some determinate sentence of any number of years which is stated in the judgment of the court.
By the Bill as it stands, on conviction of a murderer the courts will have to pass a nominal sentence of life imprisonment, but we all know perfectly well that that is a mere pronouncement of a formula and that the reality of the situation will be that the Executive will then take charge of the question of how long an individual convicted murderer shall spend in prison.
This is not only for the murderers who, up to now, have committed capital murder, but all those categories of murder which, since 1957, have not been capital. I have always conceded and recognised that every crime has a great variety of ways in which it can be committed and murder is probably the one which can have the greatest number of extremes. There are cases when a Home Secretary has released, either within a year or possibly less, certain persons convicted of murder where the circumstances have been of great pity, where the crime has been done probably to prevent the suffering of a dearly loved relative, and where any ordinary person would say that it was not a criminal act and that the convicted man did not need to suffer punishment. We are, therefore, looking at the whole range of murders, from those which no ordinary citizen would think required very much punishment to the most grave and heinous offences, some of which we have been discussing during our previous sittings.
Of course, the power of the Home Secretary to deal in reality with the length of time which a convicted murderer shall serve in prison arises from Section 27(1) of the Prison Act, 1952, which gives him the power to release a person sentenced to life imprisonment on licence and subject to such conditions as the Home Secretary may impose. That power has existed for a considerable time. I have traced it back to the Penal Servitude Act, 1892, and I have no doubt that the Home


Secretary will know and be able to inform the Committee how long this power has existed.
However, before 1957 it could have been very seldom used, because for ordinary crimes other than murder very few people were sentenced to life imprisonment and before the 1957 Act one was left only with the category of persons who were reprieved murderers. They were obviously people to whom special considerations applied, otherwise they would not have been reprieved.
Therefore, until 1957, the question of how long those serving life imprisonment should stay in prison and whether it was right that the Home Secretary, under control or unadvised by the judiciary, should decide that matter never arose. Since 1957 it has attracted very little attention, but there is no doubt that the advent of the Bill and the consideration of the consequences of it have focused very considerable attention on the problem of whether it is right that no murder will in future be capital and whether it is right that each sentence which each convicted man serves should be decided by the Home Secretary and not by the judges in the ordinary way with all the other crimes, serious and not serious.
I am not attacking the present Home Secretary either in the way in which he has exercised the power up to now, or in the way in which he has pronounced that he intends to exercise it in future. I am not attacking the last four Home Secretaries. I am not casting aspersions against any person who may hold the office of Home Secretary on the next four occasions. All that I am saying is that it is not right that the Home Secretary should take this decision and that the choice of the correct sentence on a conviction for murder should remain, as with all other criminal cases, in the hands of the judges.
The reasons why I say that the judges should decide the proper sentence in each case can be shortly summarised. First, this is a matter which fundamentally touches the liberty of the subject, and in all topics which touch the liberty of the subject we have always stood on the ground that the judiciary should bear the ultimate responsibility for deciding how long a person should stay in prison. There are one or two exceptions. A

borstal sentence is one. But apart from the case of those sentenced to life imprisonment, which up to now has attracted little attention, for all ordinary crimes, serious and not serious, the decision as to how long the citizen should remain in the custody of the State on a conviction by the court has been the responsibility of the court.
We have always regarded it, I think rightly, as one of the bulwarks of a democracy and a free society that this responsibility should remain with the judiciary. I can see almost no reasons—and I hope that I can deal with the only argument which I can see—as to why this responsibility should not continue to remain with the judiciary as it does in every other type of case.
The great disadvantage of the liberty of individul citizens being decided ex post facto by the Home Secretary—and I do not refer to the present Home Secretary—is that he exercises a secret equity. No doubt the rules under which he decides when a person shall be released become formalised. No doubt an attempt is made to apply a rule of thumb. No doubt every effort is made to do this as fairly as possible. But the fact remains that he does it in secret. He does it without having the advantage of hearing argument either on behalf of the prisoner or on behalf of the State, with the judiciary holding the balance between the two.
The Home Secretary does it in circumstances in which the public cannot know what principles he is applying and need not necessarily know when he has decided to change those principles, to make an exception to them, to extend them or to alter them. This is a form of secret administration of justice affecting citizens very deeply which is objectionable, and it is a second reason why I urge the Committee that it is right that the judiciary should pronounce sentence in cases of murder as in other cases.
I am bound to say that there may be very many instances when the judiciary will be more lenient than the Home Secretary can be. There are many cases in which the judges are able to take a far more lenient view of the circumstances and a far more merciful course than a person who is subject to political pressure, who has to administer equity according to departmental traditions and


who may find that he is unable to release a prisoner in under three or four years whereas a judge may have given him six months or less. There may be cases where the judiciary takes a more serious view. But, on balance, it is not possible to predicate one way or another that Home Secretaries in future are more likely to be more lenient than judges. If there is really no basis for estimating which will be more lenient, I would again prefer the judiciary to have the responsibility.
12.45 p.m.
There is another point which arises when the Home Secretary deals with the liberty of individual citizens which we have already discussed. There is in all sentencing a conflict between deterrence and penology. We cannot escape from the fact that part of the purpose of criminal punishment by the State is not to deal with the citizen who finds himself in the clutches of the law but to deter others from committing crime. The judiciary is experienced in holding the incredibly difficult balance which anyone who has ever sentenced a man must endeavour to hold. On the one hand, if one seems too tender towards the convicted man one appears to condone the crime. On the other hand, if one seems to be too severe in punishing the crime, one seems to forget that one is dealing with another human being whose future and family are affected.
Therefore, every judge who sentences anybody must hold the balance between the needs of deterrence, between the needs of the State to protect itself against crimes being committed, and the human desire to assist the criminal even though he may be a wicked man. This is a field in which the judiciary is particularly experienced. Any Home Secretary, to a great extent, is concerned with the individual who is in his custody and power. He receives his advice from warders, prison officers and doctors concerned with the individual who is living in custody and under the charge of the Home Secretary. It is plain to me, if I may respectfully say, that the present Home Secretary places very great weight—and, I should have said, in many instances too much weight—on the situation of the prisoner in his approach to this problem, because, as Home Secretary, his principal concern is with

penology and with the cure and reformation of prisoners.
There are, and must be, cases in which the overriding consideration has to be that of deterrence. I think that in the 1920s Lord Hewart, when he was Lord Chief Justice, went to the Old Bailey. Because the offence of blackmail was rife, he passed some swingeing sentences on blackmailers, and blackmail in the East End of London was reduced considerably. We all remember that the former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Goddard, during 1945 to 1946, passed heavy sentences of three years' imprisonment on people who stole£3 from the Post Office through their Post Office Savings Book. That was an offence which was becoming rife, and because it became known quickly that heavy sentences would be passed for it that offence stopped almost dead.
But, before it stopped, many charming and innocent old women, and many delightful people with good characters whom it was quite unnecessary, from their individual point of view, to retain in prison for three years, and who probably would never have committed another crime even if they had been fined, had to undergo severe sentences. It was for the public benefit that they should do so, however harsh it may have been on them.
Perhaps a notable example were the sentences passed at the Old Bailey for the Notting Hill riots. Sentences of five years' imprisonment did an enormous amount within the community to mark the serious view which the judiciary took of race riots and of actions of assault against coloured members of the community. It had a riveting effect in the Commonwealth, where people thought that the law of England was—and they were glad of it—protecting those who were being attacked because of their colour.
We all remember that soon after those sentences were passed there were petitions from the families, friends and relations of the five youths who were suffering the sentence. No doubt, from the penological point of view and from the personal and individual viewpoint, quite a short time in prison for each of those individuals would have been sufficient to deal with their individual case. I am,


however, sure that the Home Secretary of the day was right in firmly saying that the heavy sentences which had been passed on those individuals from the public point of view should stand.
Therefore, there is always a conflict between the balance of enforcing the law and preventing others from committing further crimes and the need to deal sensibly and kindly and in a reforming manner with those who have committed offences. This is a balance which the judiciary is better able to support and sustain than a person who has the actual responsibility for administering the prisons and dealing with the reformation and treatment of offenders and who, while indirectly concerned with the maintenance of law and order, does not have the same or a similar responsibility as the judiciary has.
Thirdly, we have to remember that if the Home Secretary is the person who becomes responsible for determining the actual sentences passed upon convicted murderers, he and the Government are subject and answerable to the House of Commons and the other place, and Parliament can question the exercise of his discretion.
I have never thought of the House of Commons or the other place as a satisfactory body for determining sentences. I do not think that a body such as ours, whatever its merits may be, is in a position to declare whether a sentence is too long, too short or right, or to criticise the Home Secretary for the way in which he exercised his discretion. This is an additional argument because the judiciary is independent. It can be criticised later, but its members can only be removed—it is unlikely that they would be—for making an error in the length of the sentence. It is much better that we should not get into a field hereafter in which it may well happen that successive Home Secretaries are constantly asked why they released certain convicted murderers, what were the circumstances that allowed them to release them so early or why they had released a certain convicted murderer or whether it was not time that they did so. We can see that pressures of that sort from this House or from another place might well arise. They would be highly undesirable and we should regret it if that were to come about.
Fourthly, if we are not careful we shall create a disequilibrium between the sentences for murder and the sentences which are passed by the courts. There has been a notable example recently with the sentences passed by the courts upon the train robbers. It would be extremely absurd if the judiciary could do no more than pass a nominal sentence of life on any murderer and if the Home Secretary released him on terms which made it appear very unequal and unsatisfactory that people who had not committed murder were being kept in prison for a much longer time. The only way in which the length of sentences of both murderers and those who commit other grave crimes and of those who commit less serious although nevertheless grave crimes can be co-ordinated and be prevented from getting into a state of disequilibrium is if the judiciary itself remains responsible for all sentences.
As I have said, the only difference that is proposed under the Bill between murder and other offences is that in the case of murder the court must pass a nominal sentence and the Home Secretary decides how long shall be served, whereas in all other cases the court decides what is fit and fair and the proper sentence. Murder can vary as much as other offences in its seriousness, in its circumstances, the way in which it is committed and the circumstances of the convicted murderer. All these factors should, as with other offences, be balanced by the judiciary.
As far as I can see, the only argument to the contrary in favour of the Home Secretary exercising this power affecting the liberties of convicted persons is that the court cannot know how the prisoner will develop. At the time it passes sentence, which presumably, in many cases of murder, is expected to be a very long one, the court cannot know what is likely to be the development in the accused person and whether, if a determinate sentence was passed, it would be safe to release the convicted murderer at the end of that sentence.
There could be circumstances in which the court took a lenient view and passed a sentence of five or less years on a convicted murderer and the Home Secretary, at the end of that period, came to the conclusion that it was unsafe to release the prisoner. This is equally true with persons who commit many


other offences. Burglars, rapists, sexual offenders and a host of other people are a danger in a different way. Those who drive carelessly or who kill by dangerous driving are just as devastating in the result of their actions as a murderer. They may be equally dangerous and yet it is never suggested that those who in one way or another have taken life, who are guilty not of murder but of some other criminal offence, should have the length of their sentence determined by the Home Secretary because it may be unsafe to release them at the end of the period.
If that really is the view of the Committee, I have put down an alternative Amendment which endeavours to deal with this point. I refer to Amendment No. 13, in page 1, line 7, at end insert:
(2) On sentencing any person on a charge of murder to imprisonment for life the court shall at the same time declare the period which it recommends to the Secretary of State as the minimum period which in its view should elapse before the Secretary of State orders the release of that person on licence under section 27 of the Prison Act 1952.
When I first began to consider this problem, perhaps with the pride of parenthood, I preferred Amendment No. 13 to Amendment No. 9, but on consideration and further thought of the implications of the problem I now much prefer Amendment 9 and I regard Amendment 13 only as a second best
The purpose of Amendment 13 is that while the Home Secretary remains ultimately responsible for the release under Section 27 of a convicted murderer under the Prison Act, 1952, the judge at the trial who has heard the case would publicly declare at that time what sentence he recommended to the Home Secretary as the minimum period which,

in his view, the crime merited and should carry. In drafting the Amendment, it seemed to me that the advantage of this was that the public generally would know the view of the judiciary.
We all know that at present, after the conviction of a murderer, the judge writes privately to the Home Secretary. Neither the public nor the House of Commons has any idea what recommendation he makes. If, however, in pronouncing sentence the judge were to say, "I regard this as a not very serious case", or, "I think it a very serious case indeed", or, "This is the most serious case of murder I have ever had before me and I certainly think that the minimum period to be served is X number of years", the public generally would know how gravely the judiciary regarded the offence. They would also know when the man might be expected to be released.
If the prisoner were released earlier by the Home Secretary, the Home Secretary would then have to explain, no doubt, to the House of Commons or to the public generally why he had disagreed with the recommendation of the judge. If, equally, he were to keep the man in prison for much longer than the judge recommended, he would again be in a position in which he would have to explain publicly why he disagreed from the view of the judiciary.
It was—

It being One o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again, pursuant to Resolution [18th March].

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Wednesday next.

Sitting suspended.

Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAYS

Dr. Beeching (Talks)

Sir Rolf Dudley Williams: asked the Minister of Transport what recent talks he has had with Dr. Beeching on transport problems.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Tom Fraser): I am in frequent touch with Dr. Beeching on matters affecting the Railways Board.

Sir Rolf Dudley Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman quite certain that he knows the views of Dr. Beeching about the line from Salisbury to Exeter? Will he discuss this problem with the successor to Dr. Beeching before any final decision is made about the line?

Mr. Fraser: I have discussed a number of lines with Dr. Beeching, as is perfectly understandable, in different parts of the country. Before reaching my decision on any proposals that the Railways Board puts up, understandably I have discussions with the representatives of the Board.

Sir Rolf Dudley Williams: Would the right hon. Gentleman say that he has in mind any intention of closing this line?

Mr. Fraser: Clearly at this stage I cannot say whether I have any intention of closing any line anywhere in the country. I receive proposals from the Railways Board. The House is aware of the procedure which is gone through and at the end of it I make a decision. I cannot anticipate at the beginning of the procedure what my decision will be at the end of it.

Richmond-Broad Street Line

Mr. A. Royle: asked the Minister of Transport what steps he is taking to remove anxiety caused by the uncertainty over the future of the Richmond to Broad Street railway line.

Mr. Dudley Smith: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has now received a recommendation from British Rail as to

the future of the Richmond to Broad Street railway line.

Mr. Tom Fraser: I have received no proposals from the Railways Board about the Richmond-Broad Street line. The Board announced on 24th February that it was continuing its investigations to try to find more economic ways of running the service. It is my hope that these investigations will yield a solution acceptable to all concerned.

Mr. Royle: This really is not good enough. Is the Minister aware that during the General Election campaign an assurance was given by his party that it would relieve the uncertainty regarding the future of this line? Is he aware that his Parliamentary Secretary gave me an assurance during a debate in this House on 11th December that the uncertainty would be relieved, and that this has not taken place? When will the Minister give this House an assurance that if the suggestion is put to him by the Railways Board that this line should be closed, he will turn that suggestion down?

Mr. Fraser: I cannot understand hon. Gentlemen opposite at all. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary gave an assurance that we would do our best to have the uncertainty removed. We had consultations with the Railways Board and the Board made an announcement on 24th February, the purpose of which was to remove uncertainty.

Mr. Royle: It has not.

Mr. Fraser: The hon. Member says that it has not. I cannot help him if he feels uncertain about this or any other matter. The position is that the Railways Board is not at the moment proposing to close the Richmond-Broad Street line. It has said that it is undertaking an investigation to see whether there are better ways of running the service rather than closing the line. We must await the outcome of the investigations before I make any pronouncement.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Surely, as this matter has dragged on for nearly two years, the right hon. Gentleman can say that if a proposal is made he will reject it because of the hardship which would be caused to London commuters?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That question must be out of order, because it is hypothetical.

Mr. Royle: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall endeavour to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Liner Trains

Mr. Goodhew: asked the Minister of Transport what progress has been made towards the introduction of liner trains for the carriage of freight.

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the Minister of Transport what progress has been made towards the introduction of liner trains for the carriage of freight.

Mr. Tom Fraser: As the House knows, negotiations have been proceeding for many months between the Railways Board and the National Union of Railwaymen over the introduction of liner train services. Although it has not proved possible for them to reach agreement, I have now decided that, in order not to further delay this very promising new development, the Board must be free to go ahead on the basis that the liner train terminals will be open to all road hauliers. I have therefore authorised the Board to incur the necessary capital expenditure to start these services.

Mr. Goodhew: I am sure that the House will welcome the statement by the right hon. Gentleman, especially in view of the urgency of this matter since the British Railways deficit cost the taxpayer four times the saving on the TSR2. May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will give an assurance that private road hauliers will be allowed to operate in connection with these liner trains?

Mr. Fraser: What I have said is that I have given my approval to the Railways Board incurring the necessary capital expenditure to start the liner train services on the basis of free terminals. I cannot give an assurance about what will happen at the end of the day. No doubt the Railways Board and the unions will have further discussions on the new situation created by the statement of policy which I have just made.

Mr. Peter Mills: Will the Minister bear in mind that the failure to introduce these liner trains has hampered the economic progress of our country? Will he do everything in his power to see that they start to operate as quickly as

possible? Will he also bear in mind that if we had liner trains, it would be a considerable help in solving the transport problems in the South-West, as this would ease the traffic on the roads?

Mr. Fraser: A great many of us have high hopes for the success of the liner trains, but they have yet to be proved. Up to now the Railways Board has not been able to incur very heavy capital expenditure. It will take a little while, even now, before the liner trains begin to operate. There will be a period of some months—perhaps six months—before the first of the services comes into operation. This is the estimate made by the Board. It has always been estimated that by the time the Board got an authorisation to go ahead with expenditure it would take six months to put the first services into operation.

Mr. Paget: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he is much to be congratulated on having had the courage to take this decision which his predecessor flanked?

Sir R. Thompson: Does the statement by the right hon. Gentleman mean that, while he will provide the necessary money to build the terminals to provide this service, he is not proposing to express any view on whether the terminals will be used as intended?

Mr. Fraser: The hon. Gentleman cannot have heard me. I said that I was giving my authority to incur the necessary capital expenditure on the basis of the terminals being opened to all road hauliers. I was not able to give an assurance to his hon. Friend that "Uncle Tom Cobley and all" would use them. It is not for me to decide.

Mr. Powell: Does that mean that if in the event it proves that the terminals are not so open, the Minister's consent will lapse?

Mr. Fraser: The right hon. Gentleman knows, if some of his hon. Friends do not, that my predecessor gave authority to the Railways Board for capital expenditure of up to£6 million to introduce the first 15 services, conditional on the Board first getting agreement with the railway unions that the terminals would be open, free to all road hauliers. For the past 12 months the Railways


Board has had discussions with the railway unions and has not reached an agreement. What I have done is to withdraw the condition put on the Railways Board by my predecessor.

Concessionary Fares

Sir R. Thompson: asked the Minister of Transport if he will give a general direction in the public interest to the Railways Board to restore the benefit of concessionary fares to orphans and necessitous children travelling to and from their place of boarding education.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): No, Sir. The decision in such cases must rest with the Railways Board.

Sir R. Thompson: Does the hon. Gentleman think it right to lump together with people such as drovers with livestock, regimental bands and people of that character, orphans who need the benefit of this concession? Does he not think that the very small amount of money required ought to be the subject of a direction from him, as he surely believes that the railways have a social as well as an economic function?

Mr. Swingler: I am well aware of the case with which the hon. Gentleman is concerned, and I have the greatest sympathy with those involved. But we have resisted the idea of giving directions on the subject of concessionary fares, whether to public boards which operate transport or to local authorities who do so. We have left it to them to decide how such fares should be operated, and I think that that must be our policy.

Somerset and Dorset Line

Lieut.-Commander Maydon: asked the Minister of Transport if he will now make a statement on the future of the Somerset and Dorset railway line.

Mr. Tom Fraser: I hope to be able to reach my decision on the proposal for closure of passenger services after receiving the views of the South-Western Region Economic Planning Council and Board on any planning implications the proposal may have.

Lieut.-Commander Maydon: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this

matter is of grave concern to people living in both the counties concerned, and in neighbouring counties for that matter, and that this very long delay is having a grave effect on public opinion, on planning for industry and on people's private affairs?

Mr. Fraser: Yes, Sir. I realise that this case has taken a very long time. My predecessor asked for a further report from the Transport Users' Consultative Committee as long ago as January, 1964, but the report was not received from the T.U.C.C. until December, 1964. In view of the statement which I made a few weeks ago, it seemed to be essential for me to give the South Western Region Economic Planning Council and Board an opportunity of commenting before I reach a decision.

Eridge—Hailsham Passenger Service

Mr. G. Johnson Smith: asked the Minister of Transport, in coming to a decision about the closing of the EridgeHailsham passenger service, what estimate he made of the cost of establishing and running, respectively, a non-token system on that section of the line as proposed by the East Sussex Travellers' Association.

Mr. Swingler: Our examination of the Association's proposals showed that their cost would have been substantially greater than the Association suggested.

Mr. Johnson Smith: If the hon. Gentleman has no exact figures of the cost of the system, how can he possibly arrive at the conclusion to close the line? Is he not aware that this system has been used successfully in Switzerland and Malaysia? Would he please have another look at it?

Mr. Swingler: The proposal made by the Association for light railway operation is quite different. My right hon. Friend's decision was based on the existing usage of the line. But, of course, it is open to any organisation to negotiate with the Railways Board to acquire the line and apply to my right hon. Friend for a light railway order. I do not wish to say anything further, except that my right hon. Friend will be quite prepared to consider any such scheme which is put forward.

Fish (Transport Charges)

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Minister of Transport (1) whether he will give a general direction, in the public interest, to the Railways Board to introduce a logical scale of charges for the transport of fish by passenger train;

(2) if he is aware that the revised charges for transporting fish by passenger train discriminate against Scottish interests; and if he will give a general direction, in the public interest, to the Railways Board that this situation be altered.

Mr. Tom Fraser: Charges for transporting fish by rail are a matter for the Railways Board. A general direction from me would not be appropriate. However, I understand that certain anomalies in charges for the carriage of fish in Scotland have recently been adjusted by the Board.

Mr. Taylor: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that a general direction would be appropriate in the circumstances, observing that only his personal intervention made the Railways Board change a crazy scale of charges under which fish from villages in west Scotland was charged more than double to Glasgow than from the same villages to London? Is he aware that in the area there have been very serious anomalies which do much damage to the Glasgow fish trade? Will he do something about it?

Mr. Fraser: I do not think that hon. Members will take the view that it would be appropriate for me to exercise my power of giving a general direction to the Railways Board, which is supposed to be a general direction in the national interest, so as to do something about charges in a particular area of the country. We must leave this to the Railways Board. I think that from time to time the Railways Board will probably take a decision which warrants reconsideration, and this was a decision which I think warranted reconsideration. However, I think that it would be proper if from time to time hon. Members would get into touch with the Railways Board to make inquiries about these matters, rather than get in touch with me.

Mr. Powell: Do we understand that in this instance the right hon. Gentleman has already made representations to the Railways Board?

Mr. Fraser: In this instance, when the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) tabled these Questions he also wrote to me, and, as happens when any hon. Member writes to me, I got in touch with the Railways Board about the matter. On this occasion I got a reply from the Railways Board in due course saying that it had reviewed and changed the charges to which the hon. Gentleman took exception.

Mr. Monro: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this double increase in freight rates has caused great concern to the salmon fisheries of Dumfriesshire, and will he see that this costly mistake is not repeated?

Mr. Fraser: I cannot give an assurance that something that has been a mistake, but made by someone else, will not be repeated. I will be hard enough put to it to ensure that any mistakes which I make will not be repeated by myself.

Mr. Taylor: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, I beg to give notice that I will seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Birmingham-Redditch Service

Mr. Ioan L. Evans: asked the Minister of Transport what action he proposes to take as a result of the inquiry held into the proposal to close the Birmingham to Redditch passenger line service; to what extent he took into account the fact that a new town is to be built in Redditch; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Tom Fraser: I am considering the Report of the Transport Users Consultative Committee. I shall also be obtaining the view of the West Midland Regional Economic Planning Council and Board on the proposal's planning implications. I will take full account of the proposed future development of Redditch in reaching my decision.

Mr. Evans: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware of the grave concern in both Birmingham and


Redditch about this proposed closure and will he suggest to the new Chairman of British Railways that in the terms of reference for considering railway closures due regard should be had to the industrial, economic and other implications involved as well as the financial implications?

Mr. Fraser: Rather than my getting in touch with the new Chairman of British Railways about the matter, I think that it would be better—and on reflection I think that my hon. Friend will agree with me—if I were fully to accept the responsibilities which lie upon me to take the decision at the end of the day. The Board should be free to make its proposal and I should be obliged, at the end of the day, to take responsibility for the decision arrived at. That I propose to do. In this case, as in other cases, I am most anxious to ensure that the social and economic aspects of the proposed closure should be fully taken into account. I am consulting the Regional Economic Planning Council and the Board and, as I have said, it seems to me important that I should take the right decision rather than a quick decision.

Mr. Dance: In view of the great anxiety in the minds of many of my constituents about this closure, when will the right hon. Gentleman be able to come to a decision? Will it be soon?

Mr. Fraser: I cannot say, but if the hon. Gentleman's constituents are so concerned about the closure—and I take it that he means that they are most concerned about the absence of railway services—I cannot understand why they voted for him at the last election.

Birmingham-Wolverhampton Passenger Service

Mr. Ioan L. Evans: asked the Minister of Transport what proposals he has now had for the closure of the railway route between Birmingham, Snow Hill, and Wolverhampton, Low Level.

Mr. Tom Fraser: In April last year the Railways Board gave advance notice of its plans for withdrawing passenger services on this line. It has not so far sent me details of any specific proposals.

Mr. Evans: Does my right hon. Friend realise that both the town centre of

Wolverhampton and the city centre of Birmingham are already choked with heavy vehicle traffic and that this closure would add to the burden if further traffic were to come on to the Wolverhampton-Birmingham road? Will this be borne in mind when consideration is being given to any possible closure?

Mr. Fraser: Most certainly, Sir.

Railway Workshops

Mr. Sheldon: asked the Minister of Transport what products he intends to permit to be manufactured at railway workshops.

Mr. Tom Fraser: I cannot say exactly what form the proposed legislation will take.

Mr. Sheldon: Will my right hon. Friend consider the manufacture of any product, whether or not it is in direct connection with the railways, and will he use the criterion of the ability of the railway workshops to compete?

Mr. Fraser: My concern—as expressed in the statement which I made a few weeks ago—is to ensure that these national assets which have been created will be fully used in the nation's interest. It is very possible that the workshops could properly produce some commodities which are not required for railway purposes. However, I think that it would be premature for me at this stage to seek to anticipate what, in the event, might be produced in the railway workshops or in any other workshops of any other nationalised industry.

Mr. Powell: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that it is in the national interest that the use of assets should be tested by competiton and that this cannot exist between an undertaking which is financed by the Exchequer on the one hand and private enterprise on the other?

Mr. Fraser: It cannot exist under the existing circumstances because at preseent the Railways Board, including the railway workshops, can and do purchase their component parts freely from private industry. But the railway workshops themselves cannot sell any component parts to private industry, even where private industry wishes to make purchases.


Surely this is a restriction which should have been removed long ago.

Mr. Powell: Is it the intention of the right hon. Gentleman that in these operations these workshops should not be financed by the Exchequer nor their responsibility for their deficits on operations carried by the taxpayer?

Mr. Fraser: It is the intention and determination of the Railways Board not to use any taxpayers' money to finance a deficit. At the moment the railway workshops are not financedby—[Interruption.] Financing of a deficit by the Treasury—[Interruption.]—they have been authorised—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members cannot expect answers to be brief if they are prolonged by interruptions.

Fraser: British Railways were authorised to go ahead with a£17 million modernisation scheme. That scheme has been very nearly completed. I should have thought that it would be the desire of hon. Members in all parts of the House to see that the nation gets value for that£17 million of expenditure.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

British Road Services (Road Haulage Association)

Mr. Buchan: asked the Minister of Transport what is the amount of the affiliation fees paid by British Road Services to the Road Haulage Association.

Mr. Tom Fraser: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) on 16th December.

Mr. Buchan: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the dissatisfaction of many workers in this industry and their anxiety that the affiliation fees being paid to the Road Haulage Association shall not be used in an anti-nationalisation campaign against the public interest, as was seen last year in respect of the steel industry when over£1 million was spent against the public interest?

Mr. Fraser: British Road Services have a special form of membership of the Road Haulage Association. They do not con-

tribute at all to funds for political activities. The B.R.S. men are not eligible to be principal officers of the National Council or the area committees of the Association. Their membership is confined to participation in the discussions which the Road Haulage Association undertakes with the Ministry and other bodies in the promotion of road safety and standards of vehicle maintenance.

Passengers (Insurance)

Mr. Tuck: asked the Minister of Transport if he will seek powers to amend Section 203 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, so as to require drivers of vehicles to be insured against injury to their own passengers as well as third parties.

Mr. Swingler: A passenger injured as a result of the negligence of another driver is already covered by that driver's insurance. As regards drivers' liabilities towards their own passengers, I would refer my hon. Friend to my right hon. Friend's reply to the hon. and learned Member for Bebington (Mr. Howe) on 24th February.

Mr. Tuck: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in the present state of the law, many passengers who are gravely injured—particularly those on motor cycles and in hired cars—find themselves entirely without compensation, except by an action against some impecunious driver? Will my hon. Friend take steps to remedy the situation?

Mr. Swingler: I am aware that there is a problem here. It was posed to Parliament by the Bill brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) in 1961, which proved then that certain complex issues were involved, especially in regard to the drivers of vehicles which did not normally carry passengers. Further studies of the problem are going on and I hope that we shall be able to make an announcement fairly soon.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Could the hon. Gentleman say what the percentage increase in premiums would be in order to carry out this suggestion?

Mr. Swingler: Not without notice, but if the hon. and learned Member will give me notice, I will endeavour to give him an answer.

Christmas Road Accidents (Report)

Mr. Dudley Smith: asked the Minister of Transport if he will now state the conclusions he has reached after studying the Road Research Laboratory's report on the alcohol factor in road accidents at Christmas and the New Year, 1964.

Sir B. Janner: asked the Minister of Transport when the full report of the Road Research Laboratory with regard to road accidents at Christmas is likely to be published.

Mr. Tom Fraser: I have not yet received the Road Research Laboratory's report. I expect to have it in the next few weeks, and I will arrange for it to be published as soon as possible afterwards.

Mr. Dudley Smith: When does the right hon. Gentleman propose to bring forward the important legislation on the question of drunken driving? Does he accept the B.M.A.'s proposal on the size of alcoholic intake, or does he think it too generous?

Mr. Fraser: I cannot at the moment say when the legislation will be brought forward. I have intimated to the House that I accept in principle the need for legislation laying down the maximum amount of alcohol to be permitted in the blood of a person in charge of a motor car without an offence being committed. Obviously I cannot anticipate what amounts will ultimately be written into the Bill. I have said that I think that when the Bill is introduced we ought to provide—in the Bill, so that Parliament can decide—what the permitted amount should be.

Mr. Strauss: Can there be any doubt that the Road Research Laboratory's report on this occasion will be identical with its reports on previous occasions, for instance when it investigated the excessive accidents over the Christmas period and said that these were mainly due to the large amount of alcohol which drivers drank during the festivities?

Mr. Fraser: I do not know whether the report will be different from the earlier reports which we have had from the Road Research Laboratory, but, in any case, even before receiving this report, I have indicated my willingness

to introduce the legislation as soon as it is convenient to do so.

Mr. Deedes: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why it has taken so long to produce the results from the Christmas figures? It has, in the past, been an average of six months before the results were known. Does he not appreciate that this has some effect on the impact which the findings may have on public opinion?

Mr. Fraser: I appreciate that, but the explanation of the long time it takes for the Road Research Laboratory to complete its analysis is that it cannot do so until all the reports are received from the police and the coroners. I understand, for example, that the latest reports by coroners on Christmas road deaths were received only in mid-April.

Dr. Summerskill: Would my right hon. Friend tell the House what advice he has received from medical authorities about this matter? When he answered Questions on this subject on 3rd March, he said that, in conjunction with this report, he was considering medical advice.

Mr. Fraser: We get medical advice from the British Medical Association. We have had some pretty comprehensive advice from the appropriate committee of the Association concerned with this matter.

Wrecked Cars (Log Books)

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Minister of Transport (1) if he will take steps to compel insurance companies and others to hand over the log books of cars they have written off as totally wrecked to local authorities so as to prevent their being rebuilt and resold as cars in roadworthy condition;

(2) if he will take steps to ensure that log books of wrecked cars impounded by local authorities can be reissued if the cars were satisfactorily rebuilt and passed tests imposed by a qualified engineer appointed by the local authority; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Tom Fraser: I cannot at present add to my reply of 17th March to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) and the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher).

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that there is a very real problem here? It is a very alarming experience to buy an unroadworthy rebuilt motor car, and it is estimated that about 40,000 cars were rebuilt during the year. In the absence of legislation, would he consider instituting talks with the A.A., the R.A.C. and the Vehicle Builders and Repairers Association to see whether customer; can be induced to demand a test of rebuilt cars before they are placed or, the market?

Mr. Fraser: I am in consultation with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and the insurers on this matter. It is well understood to be a very complex subject. I have been advising purchasers of second-hand motor cars which might very well be written-off cars that have been reconstructed always to consult a reputable garage or the A.A. or R.A.C. and get their advice before making the purchase. But there are many difficulties in the matter. The suggestions made for legislation up to now would not help us very mach, because they deal only with the car which is comprehensively insured. With regard to a car having only third-party insurance, no one except the owner would know whether the vehicle had been subjected to very considerable wrecking in a road accident and had been patched up at the owner's expense. In any case, if a car is on the road in an unroadworthy condition, the person who goes on to the road with it is liable to commit an offence, and the person who sells the car to him is also liable to commit an offence. If any hon. Member or other person has any knowledge of this practice being engaged in, he should report the matter to the authorities.

Mr. Lipton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is developing into a big racket and that probably more than 40,000 cars are on the road at some time or other which have been written-off as a total loss? Ought not some action to be taken in the very near future to prevent this becoming an even greater abuse than it is at the moment?

Mr. Fraser: We must be a little careful. I understand that the insurers make a written-off money payment to the

person who owns the motor car, but it does not mean that the vehicle is incapable of being reconstructed and made into a very safe car. It merely means that it is a greater convenience to the insurance company to pay a cash sum for the written-off value of the car than to pay the cost of the repairs to the car. Therefore, it is not a straightforward matter. None the less, I have not said that I will do nothing about it. I have said that I am re-examining the problem in consultation with the Home Secretary and the insurance companies, who may be able to give me some valuable advice.

Geddes Committee (Report)

Mr. Powell: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has received the Report of the Geddes Committee; and if he will now give a date for its publication.

Mr. Tom Fraser: Yes, Sir. I am most grateful to Lord Geddes and his Committee for the hard work which has enabled them to finish their task quickly. I shall publish the Report as soon as printing and other necessary arrangements can be completed, I hope in about two months' time.

Transport Services (Co-ordination)

Mr. Galbraith: asked the Minister of Transport if, in view of the need for an independent inquiry into the coordination of transport services, he will now appoint a committee with an independent chairman to make such an inquiry.

Mr. Tom Fraser: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave to the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) on 10th March.

Mr. Galbraith: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the reply to my hon. Friend does not answer our difficulties at all? Is he not aware how thoroughly unsatisfactory it is for him to take kudos by appointing a well-known national figure like Lord Hinton to carry out an investigation and then, by making him a civil servant, to muzzle him so that no one knows what advice he is giving? Should not the Minister either do the job himself, with his own civil servants, or,


if he must appoint a great public figure, could not he at least leave him free so that his deliberations are known to the country?

Mr. Fraser: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to realise that Lord Hinton has become a civil servant—

Mr. Galbraith: I said so.

Mr. Fraser: —so he is like any other civil servant. It does not lie in the mouth of the hon. Gentleman to complain about great public figures being muzzled after being appointed by the Government. Does he not remember what happened to the Stedeford Report?

Mr. Strauss: But can my right hon. Friend give further consideration to this very important matter? Could he not make some special arrangement with Lord Hinton so that it may be possible that, after Lord Hinton's very careful scrutiny, Parliament and the public may have some idea of what his conclusions and recommendations are? If we do not know that, we shall not know to what extent the Minister accepts or rejects them, or what the right course to follow is.

Mr. Fraser: I should have thought that what Parliament and the public were more entitled to know would be what proposals I will be bringing forward for transport co-ordination. I should have thought that they would be less concerned with the extent to which I have taken the advice given to me by one public servant or another in order to reach the conclusion that I make on the matter. Surely, the public and the House should discuss in debate what the Government propose, and not what someone else proposes.

Mr. Powell: If the right hon. Gentleman intends, quite properly, to accept and defend the responsibility for whatever decision eventuates, what is the point of specifying the name of the public servant for the time being from whom he is receiving some of the advice?

Mr. Fraser: The right hon. Gentleman seems to be forgetting the history of this situation. At one time, there was great public discussion about the possibility of Dr. Beeching taking on this job. It was quite clear that Dr. Beeching did not intend to do it as a temporary civil

servant — [HON. MEMBERS: "Quite right."]—but intended to make his study and publish a report. That was quite clear. In the event, however, it was not possible for him to do this job and I had to make a statement to that effect on 23rd December last. Then I was under considerable pressure to say what I would do instead, and I thought that I was being courteous to the House in coming forward and telling the House precisely what I was doing.

Rural Transport

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the Minister of Transport what help he will give to rural transport operators.

Mr. Tom Fraser: Bus operators are already being relieved of the recent fuel tax increase so far as it affects their stage services, and the recent increases in vehicle excise duties have not been applied to them.
I have also now received the results of the local rural bus inquiries and experiments which were initiated last year in selected areas. They have provided useful information which I will publish as soon as possible. I propose to discuss the results with the associations of local authorities and bus operators.

Mr. Mills: I thank the Minister for what he has said. Would he not agree with me that one way in which we could help these rural bus operators, who are in very real trouble, would be for those who are running the educational buses to run the new State services as well? As the railways are being closed down, we desperately need these rural bus operators to take over this work. This is one way in which we could help.

Mr. Fraser: This is one respect in which an experiment was made during the past year, and on which there will be comments in the report, as the hon. Gentleman will see when it is published. This is just one of the things we will discuss with local authorities and bus operators who, between them, are responsible for these local bus services. It may be that there will have to be some adjustments of the licensing provisions to enable this to be done.

Mr. Snow: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the characteristics of


the development of the West Midlands overspill schemes is the extension into the countryside of estates, both private and municipal, and that it is becoming a very serious problem, with the rural transport facilities there are, to get these residents to and from their work? Will he take this aspect into account in any future plans he has?

Mr. Fraser: Certainly.

Mr. Ronald Bell: What will emerge from these discussions and considerations that the Minister is to have? Will he issue some report, or what tangible form will the communication take? Will the right hon. Gentleman remember that this is a matter of widespread interest? Will he bear in mind that I wrote to him several weeks ago on behalf of three or four hon. Members and myself and that we are still awaiting an answer to those letters on this subject? In fact, will he not keep inside his bosom whatever advice he receives from these gentlemen, but pass it on to us?

Mr. Fraser: I said straight away that I intended to publish the results of the experiments that we carried through, and publish them as soon as possible. I have said that I shall have discussions with the local authority associations and the bus operators—

Mr. Ronald Bell: When?

Mr. Fraser: Straight away. I think that it will be for hon. Members to prod me again in the future as to what the results of my discussions are, rather than that I should undertake at this time formally to communicate in some way or other with the House. I am sure that the House will not be backward in finding out what the outcome of the discussions is.

Mr. Kitson: asked the Minister of Transport when he expects to complete the review of rural transport; what steps he intends to take, following the representations made to him, to include the Richmond to Barnard Castle bus service in his regional transport review; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Swingler: My right hon. Friend has informed the House of the latest position on the rural bus inquiries, in reply to a Question he has just answered

today from the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills).
The regional planning board will be concerned with long-term rather than immediate problems. We would not consider it appropriate to bring individual bus services to its notice at this stage.

Motor Rallies

Mr. Ridley: asked the Minister of Transport if he will, at an early date and before the Summer Recess, lay before Parliament regulations to control motor rallies.

Mr. Swingler: We aim to make regulations as soon as possible, probably in June. But to allow promoters time to apply for the necessary authorisation there will be an interval of six months before it becomes an offence to hold an unauthorised event.

Mr. Ridley: Is it not true that Lord Chesham made his report nearly a year ago and that it is a very serious matter if this summer is also to be one in which there is no control of motor rallies? Will the hon. Gentleman look at that Answer again to see if he can bring in regulations in time for this summer season in view of the grave importance of this matter to selected villages in the countryside?

Mr. Swingler: I appreciate what the hon. Member has said, but a large number of local and national organisations have had to be consulted and there have been other kinds of hiatus in the last 12 months. It has been a long period, I agree, but the process of preparation is going forward. I give an assurance that we will bring forward the regulations as soon as possible when the consultations are completed.

Lorries (Overhanging Loads)

Sir A. Meyer: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is satisfied that the lighting requirements at the rear of overhanging loads on lorries are adequate; and whether he will introduce regulations to provide for standard and clearly visible markings on lorries carrying such loads.

Mr. Swingler: We are satisfied with the existing regulations, which provide


for an additional red lamp to be carried near the back of any load which projects more than 3½ft. to the rear. Where the projection exceeds 10 ft. marker boards must be fixed near the end of the load and lit during darkness.

Sir A. Meyer: Is the Minister satisfied that mud-encrusted "glow worms" which normally constitute such lights are sufficient warning? Is he aware that a constituent of mine was killed recently by a large overhanging load marked by a very dirty piece of red cloth which was not clearly visible 10 yards away?

Mr. Swingler: There is little that can be done by issuing regulations. There is the problem of enforcement: we are not satisfied about the enforcement of the regulations or that people exercise a proper degree of commonsense in this matter. We therefore hope that all citizens will co-operate in seeing that these regulations are properly enforced for, if they were, there would be a greater degree of safety.

Mr. Woodburn: Will the Minister please consider this matter again? One of the most dangerous things on the roads is a dead black vehicle on a dead black night when the so-called lamp is quite invisible. All kinds of people run into these loads, sometimes when the lorries are stationary. Would it not be possible to have luminous paint on the back of the lorries, or could they be painted white as is done in some parts of America? Could not some novel ways be adopted of making these loads visible to motorists and others? Even cyclists run into them because they cannot see them.

Mr. Swingler: My right hon. Friend has drawn attention to the fact that the regulations are not observed. If the lamp is not clearly visible and if the markers are not clearly visible that is an offence against the law. If we had a higher degree of enforcement of the law there would be a higher degree of safety.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Has the hon. Gentleman any statistics of the accidents which are caused through these lights being inefficient?

Mr. Swingler: I have statistics about accidents classified according to vehicles.

If the hon. Member will put down a specific Question relating to this matter—I was not asked this—I shall endeavour to give him the information.

Mr. Powell: To what cause does the hon. Gentleman attribute the fact that these regulations are not being properly enforced?

Mr. Swingler: Unfortunately, I fear, there are many regulations in relation to traffic which are not widely enforced, partly because the police have to be concerned with so many other matters and very often they are undermanned. Also, perhaps we could have a higher standard of co-operation from citizens generally in drawing attention to breaches of the law. That would produce a higher standard of safety on the roads.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

Wheathampstead By-Pass

Mr. Goodhew: asked the Minister of Transport when it is proposed to commence work on the Wheathampstead bypass in the St. Albans constituency.

Mr. Swingler: This scheme has not found a place in the classified road programme. I understand that Hertfordshire County Council, as highway authority, intends to examine the possibility of a better route. It is too soon to say when construction could begin.

Mr. Goodhew: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that this road should obviously have been built before the B.653 was widened and improved, which has resulted in a large increase in the amount of fast and heavy traffic through the village of Wheathampstead? Will he arrange with his officials to consult with the Hertfordshire County Council to see whether this whole matter can be reconsidered?

Mr. Swingler: There have been consultations and we are aware of the need here, but this scheme is not ranked very high on the priority list of the Hertfordshire County Council. We shall continue to consult it and there is no question that something will have to be done, but, at the moment, this is not considered a high priority scheme.

M.1 Motorway

Mr. Gurden: asked the Minister of Transport when he will make provision for entry to M.1 motorway at or near to the junction with M.45 to enable traffic from the Leamington-Kenilworth area to enter the north-bound lanes.

Mr. Swingler: Traffic can join the north-bound lanes at Crick and Lutter-worth. We have no plans for any further provision.

Mr. Gurden: Does the hon. Gentleman realise what a serious matter this can be for all the industries around the south Midlands and particularly those factories where a joint venture has been entered into in north and north-east Midland development areas, because it means that when the M.1 is completed a tremendous amount of increased traffic will be put on second-class roads from areas at Coventry, Leamington and even Birmingham to get to the north-bound lane? Ought there not to be an entry from the M.45?

Mr. Swingler: We are anxious that the benefit of the motorway should be extended to the industrialists and other people who live in the area, but the Crick Junction is less than two miles north of the junction of the M.45 and the M.1. The question of providing an entry there has been investigated, and it would be a very costly operation. We feel that the junctions which I have mentioned. Crick and Lutterworth, are adequate for those who wish to use the north-bound lane.

Tees-side (Road Survey)

Mr. Tinn: asked the Minister of Transport when he will publish the results of his survey of the road system on Tees-side.

Mr. Swingler: My right hon. Friend has not yet received the report of the consulting engineers appointed by his predecessor to make the survey. When he does he will consider the recommendations and make an announcement as soon as possible.

Mr. Tinn: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him to bear in mind when considering the report the particular problems of East Cleveland

in regard to employment and the condition of the roads?

Mr. Swingler: We are very anxious to study the report as soon as possible. We realise that there are very important implications for the economic development of Tees-side and transport in the area. Owing to improvements in the techniques of surveying, the survey has taken rather longer than was expected, but we believe that the results will be much better than if it had taken a shorter time.

Crook-Bishop Auckland Road

Mr. Armstrong: asked the Minister of Transport what proposals he has for the improvement of the road from Crook to Bishop Auckland.

Mr. Swingler: This is a Class I road for which the Durham County Council is responsible. Strengthening and widening of the road southwards from Crook to Bishop Auckland will be carried out progressively over the next few years. A new high-level bridge will ultimately be required at Newton Cap. This will be an expensive project and we cannot say, at this time, when it is likely to be included in the roads programme.

Mr. Armstrong: Is my hon. Friend aware that the closing of the railway passenger services between Crook and Bishop Auckland has altered the priorities somewhat and has made this scheme particularly urgent? Will he review the allocations to the Durham County Council in order that the Council may carry out this very necessary work?

Mr. Swingler: Certainly my right hon. Friend is prepared to consider that matter. We have had only a short experience, as a result of the decision taken by my right hon. Friend's predecessor, of the closure of these railway services, but if the effects are severe we will be prepared, in consultation with the Durham County Council, to reconsider these matters.

Gate House-Eastgate Roads

Mr. Armstrong: asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware of the inadequacy of the roads between Gate House on the A.68 and the cement works at Eastgate; what action he will take to improve them; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Swingler: The B.6293 is a class II road for which the Durham County Council is the highway authority. Major improvements at Bradley Bridge and the eastern end of Frosterley have recently been completed. The extension of the latter work from Frosterley to Willow Green is to start shortly. Other improvements are to be carried out progressively.

Mr. Armstrong: Is my hon. Friend aware that the cement factory at Eastgate is to come into operation next month and that I was given to understand during my visit there last week that 38 heavy lorries will be travelling continuously from the cement works to various parts of north-east England? Is my hon. Friend aware that this will make the road completely inadequate, and will he give urgent consideration to this problem?

Mr. Swingler: Yes, Sir. I am aware that my hon. Friend drew our attention to this matter some time ago. Continuous consultations have been going on about it. I agree that more work may be needed and I am sure that my hon. Friend will have noticed that quite a lot of work is developing in Durham by way of road improvements.

Road Widening Scheme, Bromley

Mr. Hunt: asked the Minister of Transport why he has refused to give priority to the first stage of Bromley Council's road-widening scheme between Knole Road and Lower Gravel Road, Bromley Common; and whether he will now advance the scheme so that it can proceed in the year 1965–66.

Mr. Swingler: My right hon. Friend did not consider the preparation of this scheme sufficiently far advanced to justify its inclusion in the 1965–66 programme. It will be for the G.L.C. as highway authority for the A.21, to propose the inclusion of the scheme in a subsequent year.

Mr. Hunt: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that his reply will cause a great deal of disappointment and dismay to many of my constituents, who are extremely concerned about the situation here? Will he bear in mind that this is an extremely busy stretch of road, forming part of the main road to the South Coast; that last autumn there were three fatalities to pedestrians in the course of

five weeks, and that there are fears of further deaths on this road unless the appropriate local authority is given permission to proceed at once with the road widening and the provision of central refuges, which will cost only£35,000? In view of the modest expenditure involved, will he persuade his right hon. Friend to undertake one more look at this point?

Mr. Swingler: It is a technical difficulty. There is no question of any delay on account of lack of authority. It is a problem of the time it takes to complete the design and acquire the land. In fact, the question of including the scheme this year is entirely dependent on whether the necessary preparations have been made, and the money could be spent. We are prepared to consider an application, as soon as the design is ready and the land can be acquired, for inclusion in the programme as soon as the highway authority considers that this is necessary.

A.6 Road, Rushden (By-pass)

Mr. Harry Howarth: asked the Minister of Transport what decision he has reached regarding the proposed bypass at Rushden, Northamptonshire, on the A.6.

Mr. Tom Fraser: I am awaiting the result of an analysis of traffic by the Northamptonshire County Council before reaching a decision.

Mr. Howarth: Will not my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the fact that there are two routes on the plan at the present time is causing considerable frustration in the area because of the sterilisation of building land? Will he decide which of the two routes should be the by-pass for the future, even if it is not to be put into operation straight away?

Mr. Fraser: I think that my hon. Friend willl agree that I really must not take a decision until I have advice in the matter from the county council. As soon as the county council gives me that advice, I shall try to reach a decision on which of the two routes should be developed.

A.45 Road, Wilby (By-pass)

Mr. Harry Howarth: asked the Minister of Transport when he will


authorise the building of a by-pass at Wilby, Northamptonshire, on the A.45.

Mr. Tom Fraser: I hope to include this scheme in a future extension of my classified road programme. I cannot say when funds will be allocated to the scheme in competition with the many others waiting to be done.

Mr. Howarth: I thank my right hon. Friend for that Answer, which is more encouraging than the information we have had in the past. Is he not aware that this route has been pegged out since 1939, and that many people in this very small village were not hopeful of ever having a by-pass in their lifetime? I am sure that they will be considerably encouraged by what my right hon. Friend has said today.

A.66 Road (Scotch Corner—Greta Bridge)

Mr. Kitson: asked the Minister of Transport if he will survey the A.66 between Scotch Corner and Greta Bridge to consider what improvements are required.

Mr. Swingler: We are aware of conditions on this stretch of road. Apart frcm the proposed flyover at Scotch Corner junction itself, there is no possibility of our being able to start any major improvement within the next four or five years. But we have certain minor improvements in mind and I shall be wr.ting more fully to the hon. Member in reply to the letter I have had from him about this stretch of road.

Mr. Kitson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the last time he answered this Question he said that he did not think it was necessary to conduct a survey? That was only a few weeks ago. Since then three people and a horse have been killed. Does he not think that it is about time he did something about it?

Mr. Swingler: There is no question of needing to accumulate more facts. Unfortunately, we are well aware of the bad accident record and of the need to do something about this road. It is a question of our priorities in relation to the funds which are available. The major improvement will undoubtedly have to wait for some time. As I said, we are determined to make some minor

improvements and I hope to let the hon. Gentleman have detailed information about these in a very short time.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPPING

National Ports Council (Interim Proposals)

Mr. Heffer: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will now make a statement on the interim proposals of the National Ports Council; and what specific proposals they contain for the port of Liverpool.

Mr. Tom Fraser: I am awaiting the Council's report, which it has promised to let me have after it has discussed the proposals in it with the port authorities concerned.

Mr. Heffer: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board has now developed a scheme for the extension of the docks in Liverpool? Has this been drawn to his attention, and, if so, what support are the Government likely to give to this expansion scheme?

Mr. Fraser: I am aware of the proposed expansion at Liverpool, but, under the terms of the Harbours Act passed last year, I am obliged to await the advice which I may receive from the National Ports Council on the proposal. I should tell the House and my hon. Friend that it would be not only very improper of me to anticipate what I might say after I get the Council's advice on the matter, but very wrong of me to take a decision on individual, very costly port projects without seeking to fit all of them into a total expenditure which will ensure, so faras I can ensure it, that the nation will get the best results from the capital investment involved.

Mr. Galbraith: Could the right hon. Gentleman clear up this matter? Has he had the report from the National Ports Council in respect of this area? Is he waiting for reports from all other areas before he makes a statement? Has he any idea when he may be able to make a statement, not only with regard to this area, but with regard to all areas?

Mr. Fraser: I am awaiting the receipt of what has come to be known as the National Ports Council's interim£100


million plan. The Council tells me that it will let me have it quite soon and I shall study it with interest.

Mr. Wilkins: It was about six weeks ago that my right hon. Friend said that he hoped to make a statement shortly. When is "shortly"?

Mr. Fraser: I am not altogether able to determine when I shall be able to make a statement. I cannot make a statement on the Ports Council's plan until I have received it. I have let the Council know that I want it as soon as the Council can reasonably let me have it, and it has told me that it will let me have it shortly. I hope that that means in a very few weeks.

Mr. Tilney: Will the right hon. Gentleman also bear in mind that what the Merseyside ports want is extension of the motorway, too?

Mr. Fraser: Yes, but when we are discussing ports it is as well for the House to bear in mind that the delay in handling our exports is normally occasioned in the ports and not on the way to them. A big job is being undertaken in improving port facilities.

Port of London

Mr. Marten: asked the Minister of Transport what effect the proposed reduction of the 15 per cent. import surcharge is having on the transit of goods in the Port of London.

Mr. Swingler: Very little. We understand from the Port of London Authority that its announcement of a special transfer charge on goods not cleared within a reasonable time has helped to prevent congestion in the transit sheds.

Mr. Marten: Apart from that extra charge, is it not true that the transit sheds were cluttered by the imposition of the surcharge when people were waiting for the reduction of surcharge in order to bring their goods forward to Customs and that this had an effect on exports? Will the Government bear this in mind next time they are contemplating imposing a surcharge?

Mr. Swingler: The slow clearance of transit sheds has nothing to do with the surcharge but is a long-standing prob-

lem with which the P.L.A. has had to grapple. The P.L.A. has grappled skilfully and quickly with what is undoubtedly a difficult situation. The report we have had is that there has not been serious congestion.

Oral Answers to Questions — EXECUTORS

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: asked the Attorney-General if he will take steps to give greater publicity to the position and duties of an executor of a will, especially in regard to the debt position of the deceased, in view of the fact that many people agree to become an executor with little knowledge of what is entailed and later find themselves subject to legal proceedings, and liable to fines.

The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): A person who agrees to act as executor of a will acquires rights and assumes obligations which are enforceable in the courts, and in case of any difficulty would be well advised to consult a solicitor—[Laughter.]—I have no vested interest in that advice. It would not be appropriate for me to give any general guidance on matters of this kind, but I hope that the hon. and gallant Member's Question and my Answer will have drawn attention to the legal consequences of appointment as executor.

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of a case in my constituency where a person acting as an executor to a relative was heavily fined because all the regulations were not fully complied with? As these regulations are so complicated, would it not be possible to attach to wills some form of instruction for executors warning them of their responsibilities and the results of not complying with the regulations?

The Attorney-General: I shall certainly give serious consideration to that suggestion. I am aware of the case to which the hon. and gallant Member referred, but it underlines the very great importance of advertising for creditors before distributing the assets of the estate.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Is not it already the law of the land that a person who without his knowledge and unwillingly is appointed an executor can refuse to act on learning of his appointment?

The Attorney-General: That is quite accurate and I am grateful for the learning of my hon. and learned Friend.

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: While I appreciate the reply which the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave, is it not clear that mistakes of this sort can be made by someone who simply does not understand the regulations? It is easy to say what the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) said, that people can refuse to act, but, the object of the exercise should be to try to make things easy for executors and to protect them.

The Attorney-General: I am sure that the hon. and gallant Member's Question and the publicity it will undoubtedly receive will have been of some assistance in this difficult field. The doctrine that ignorance of the law is no excuse is, I know, a very difficult doctrine.

Oral Answers to Questions — ESTATE AGENTS (FEES)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Minister without Portfolio if his proposals for law reform will include legislation dealing with the fees charged by estate agents in the conveyancing of houses.

The Minister without Portfolio (Sir Eric Fletcher): The fees charged by estate agents are not at present subject to any control. In conjunction with the Government's general review of the cost of house purchase, this is one of the aspects being examined.

Mr. Hamilton: Is my hon. Friend aware that that Answer will give at least some satisfaction to hon. Members on this side of the House who regard this as one of the biggest rackets in the land today? Does my hon. Friend seek to defend a system whereby these people can charge not anything in proportion to work done but in proportion to the cost of the house? In view of the fact that house prices are

continuously rising, how can this system possibly be defended any longer?

Sir E. Fletcher: I do not think it would be appropriate for me to comment on what my hon. Friend has said, but I repeat that this matter is being very carefully examined by the Government.

Mr. Grant: While noting that estate agents' commission is considerably higher than solicitors' charges in conveyancing matters, may I ask whether it could be made clear that people are not obliged to instruct estate agents but can always sell houses themselves? Is there not too great a tendency to interfere with the sanctity of contract?

Sir E. Fletcher: The hon. Member has quite properly drawn attention to the fact that no one wishing to sell a house is obliged to engage an estate agent.

Oral Answers to Questions — BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS

School Leavers (Service in Overseas Development)

Mr. Walden: On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy), I beg to give notice that on Friday, 14th May, he will call attention to the need to acquaint all school-leavers with the opportunities of service in overseas development, and move a Resolution.

Voting Age

Mr. Maxwell: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 14th May, I shall call attention to the need to reduce the voting age to 18, and move a Resolution.

Local Government Reform

Mr. Ian Gilmour: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 14th May, I shall call attention to the need for local government reform, and move a Resolution.

MERCHANT SHIPPING

3.32 p.m.

Mr. George Jeger: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to the measurement of the tonnage of merchant ships and the marking of load lines.
The Bill which I seek leave to introduce is another in the long line of Merchant Shipping Bills which have reached the Statute Book during the past 70 years. It will be concerned with the rather complicated subject of measurement of ships for tonnage. Tonnage is an expression of a ship's volume in tons of 100 cubic feet. Broadly speaking, gross tonnage is the total volume of the ship and may be said to indicate its size. Net tonnage is ascertained by making certain deductions from the gross tonnage and may be said to be approximately a measure of the earning capacity of the ship.
It is necessary to ascertain the tonnage of a ship for many purposes: determination of tonnage is a prerequisite of registry, and it is used as a criterion for many other purposes connected with shipping and in particular as the basis for charges levied on ships for services rendered to them in the various ports. It is clearly a matter of importance to the shipping industry. The current law on tonnage measurement is to be found in the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, as amended by the Merchant Shipping Acts of 1906, 1907, 1948 and 1954. The wording of the Acts is archaic and with the passage of time they contain many anomalies.
It is time that the British law on the subject is given a new and up-to-date look. The object of my proposed Bill, therefore, is to repeal the existing law and to enable this complicated subject to be dealt with by regulations made by the Board of Trade. At this stage, it is not proposed that the regulations to be made under powers contained in the Bill shall do more than clarify and consolidate the present law, except in relation to a particular matter which I will come to shortly.
At present, there is much international interest in the subject of tonnage measurement, and considerable time is being devoted to it by the Inter-Governmental

Maritime Consultative Organisation—known as I.M.C.O.—a United Nations agency whose objective is to facilitate co-operation among governments on safety at sea and in technical matters of all kinds affecting shipping. The United Kingdom plays an important part in the work of I.M.C.O., including the work it is doing in connection with tonnage measurement.
I.M.C.O. is currently engaged in seeking a universal system of tonnage measurement which could be applied by all nations. At present, there are five main systems in use throughout the world—the British, that of the Scandinavian and certain other countries—which closely resembles the British system; the system used in the U.S.A., and the systems of the Suez and Panama Canals. It will clearly be advantageous if the world can measure its ships in a uniform manner. In that way the acceptance of national tonnage figures by all countries for dues purposes will be facilitated.
At present, there are many reciprocal agreements between countries whose tonnage measurement systems are similar, but these do not apply to all countries and difficulties arise where methods of measure ment differ substantially. A universal system of tonnage measurement would facilitate the acceptance in its ports by any country of the ships of other nations.
In addition—this is a vitally important matter—it would enable safety regulations to be more uniformly applied under international conventions. For instance, the scale of safety equipment required to be carried on board ship depends to some extent on the tonnage of the ship. With a universal measurement system, there would be a more uniform application of those safety rules which are linked to the ship's tonnage.
But there is a pressing reason for introducing the proposed Bill at this time. I.M.C.O., during its work on a universal tonnage measurement system, has recently made a recommendation to Governments on one aspect of tonnage measurement. This is rather complicated and concerns the treatment of what are called "shelter deck" ships. These are ships constructed with what are known as "tonnage openings"; that is, small hatchways cut in the topmost


deck. The space between the topmost deck and the next deck below is included in or excluded from the ship's tonnage according to whether or not the tonnage openings are fitted with watertight means of closure.
It may interest the House to know that the concept of this type of ship arises from a legal decision of 1875 to the effect that a permanent closed-in space on the upper deck available for cargo, and so liable for inclusion in the ship's tonnage, must be closed completely and efficiently so as to be fit for the proper protection of cargo.
Most countries now agree that "tonnage openings" from a practical point of view serve no useful purpose, and some even think they are unsafe. The 1960 Conference on the Safety of Life at Sea urged that they should be abolished, and I.M.C.O., in the course of its tonnage measurement work, has agreed on a scheme which eliminates the need for such openings without loss of their benefits.
Adoption of the recommendation now by Great Britain would be very difficult, because our law is so complicated and archaic. Although the recommendation would result in greater flexibility of operation for ship owners, at the same time it could not be done under our present legislation. The regulations will be complicated, but, like all regulations made under the Merchant Shipping Acts, they will he drafted by the Board of Trade in full consultation with the shipping industry and other interests and will be suJject to negative Resolution of the House.
I ask the House to give me leave to introduce the Bill, which will allow the complex matter of tonnage measurement to be dealt with in a modern way by regulations, will enable the I.M.C.O. recommendation to which I have referred to be brought into force, and will make it easier to deal with future developments in this field. It will also simplify and bring together provisions now to be found in a number of Acts of Parliament. I understand that such a Bill will have the support of the Board of Trade and that it will be welcomed by British shipowners, because it will enable them to maintain their competitive position with the ships of other countries which are in process of adopting the I.M.C.O. recommendation.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. George Jeger, Mr. James Johnson, Mr. Hayman, Commander Courtney, and Mr. Ian Lloyd.

MERCHANT SHIPPING

Bill to amend the law relating to the measurement of the tonnage of merchant ships and the marking of load lines, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 14th May and to be printed. [Bill 136.]

COMMONS REGISTRATION BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

3.40 p.m.

The Minister of Land and Natural Resources (Mr. Frederick Willey): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is an especially agreeable task. I am sure that the Bill will be generally welcome. After all, we have been waiting a very long time for it. In proceeding with the Bill the Government are showing that they intend to afford a high priority to the better use of our land and natural resources in place of the indifference they have suffered under the previous Administration. It is seven years since the Royal Commission on Common Land, in its lucid and comprehensive Report, made a whole series of recommendations designed to bring common land into fuller and more effective use.
During the war, the food production drive brought a sharp realisation of the neglect of much of our common land. In 1942, the Scott Committee on Rural Land Utilisation stressed the need for better records and of making fuller use of common land. But uncertainties, legal doubts, the disappearance of the old manorial courts, changing patterns of agricultural production, new social habits and the passing of old social orders of the countryside have made the management of common land an even greater problem in peace time.
It is not only a difficult, but also an important problem. Common land is very much part and parcel of our national heritage. To quote the opening


sentence of the Commission's Report:
The traveller in England and Wales is seldom very far from a piece of common land.
However, common land is unevenly spread over the country, and commons vary enormously in size and character—Wandsworth Common, Tooting Bec, Newcastle's Town Moor, the Malvern Hills, Bodmin Moor, and the vast fell commons in the Lakes.
In the northern counties we are particularly fortunate. Again to quote the Report:
Strange as it may seem to the Londoner who thinks in terms of Clapham and Wandsworth Commons, or of the commons of Surrey and Hertfordshire, or to the citizen of Birmingham who remembers the Malvern Hills, the great extent of common land is found in the hill-sheep farming areas of the Pennines, the Lake District, the heart of Wales and the uplands of the South-Western Peninsula in Devon and Cornwall.
The metropolitan commons, with their trim football and cricket pitches, and the wild moorlands of Northern England are equally commons. All told, the Commission reckoned that there remain about 1½ million acres of common land. Certainly, using the term in its widest sense, it is one of our greatest natural resources.
The Commission's conclusion, which we accept, was that, as the last reserve of uncommitted land in England and Wales, common land ought to be preserved in the public interest, and, as the Commission said, public interest embraces both the creation of wider facilities for public access and enjoyment, and an increase in the productivity of the land.
The Commission's Report warned us that often the village green grows from bad to worse, ceasing to be the centre of village life and deteriorating instead into an eyesore and a nuisance. We have also got to remember that nowadays those living in the cottages flanking the green very often are newcomers from the towns, having little or no knowledge of their ancient stake in the village greens.
The Commission reminded us of the neglect of the commons—the restriction of access and enjoyment of the commons by the encroachment of bush and scrub, finishing, as some commons have become—impenetrable to all save the adventurous or the foolhardy.
As the Report says:
Taking common land as a whole we are left with the impression that it is the relic of an ancient system of land management which has caused it to lag behind other land in agricultural production.…Lacking vitality locally, the whole system which legislation over the last century aimed at preserving has tended to ossify instead. The result has all too often been the neglect of the land with the loss of production to the commoners and of amenity to the public.
Since the Royal Commission's Report the neglect has continued. Of the commons selected for the recent Nuffield Survey, nearly 40 per cent. were the victims of an unchecked advance of scrub and infestation of weeds; 23 per cent. were marred by litter and debris; double that percentage were improperly grazed, and on 12 per cent. vandalism in varying degrees offended the sense of public decency. We really cannot afford to allow this to continue any longer.
The fundamental difficulty is the uncertainty which bedevils so many of the commons. Often enough, nobody is really sure whether the land is common at all. More often, the owner is unknown and the rights of common vague and uncertain. It is this general state of uncertainty that is the main stumbling block in improving the commons. No one can read the Commission's Report without being convinced of the necessity for a public record of common land, its boundaries and ownership and of common rights.
Our first task is to establish with certainty the facts. It is not surprising that, of the Commission's 70 recommendations, the first 22 concern the establishment of the facts by registration. This is the essential first step absolutely necessary to pave the way for further effective action.
First of all, we should create the machinery for establishing the facts by registration; that is the simple purpose of this Bill. Until the facts are authoritatively established and recorded it would be premature to frame the further legislation that will be required. What the Bill will do is to provide the foundation for further commons legislation making provision for statutory schemes for the management and improvement of common land.
As I have said, commons vary widely in character. In fact, the needs of two commons even in the same parish may


be totally different. Our first objective must be to establish the facts; then we can decide what must be done. The Bill, therefore, provides for the registration of common land and of town and village greens, the extent and ownership of the land, the identity of the commoners and their rights.
Although the purpose of the Bill is simple enough, it is fairly complex and, rather than guide the House through the Bill Clause by Clause, I think that it will be more helpful to outline its main proposals. Under Clause 2, registration authorities will be set up—they will he the Greater London Council and the county and county borough councils—which will maintain the registers required Ly Clause 3. They will register claims, which will be one of three kinds: first, land which is a common or a town or village green—and anyone can make such a claim even if he or she has no legal iaterest in the land—or; secondly, rights of common over the common or green; or, thirdly, the ownership of such land.
All claims will have to be attested before a commissioner of oaths. If common land or a green is not claimed it will lose its status, and similarly, if anyone does not claim his common rights, they will be lost, except for common rights already registered at the Land Registry. This is provided in Clause 1. Three years will be allowed for claims to be made, and this period should begin in January, 1967. This will give me good time in which to publicise the steps that people will have to take to secure their rights.
We propose to divide this registration period into two consecutive periods each of 18 months.
There will be no charge for claims made in the first 18 months' period, but people who delay putting in their claims until the second 18 months will be charged£5, although this fee will be waived if the claimant gave prior notice of his intention to claim.
Each period of 18 months will then be followed by a further period of two years for the lodging of objections with the registration authorities. This is provided in Clause 5, which also provides for the public to be notified of registration. Claims will be advertised in the local Press and the registration authorities will send extracts from their registers to their

district and parish councils, who will also make them available for inspection. An undisputed claim—that is where a registered claim is not contested during the time it is open to objection—will under Clause 7 automatically become final and under Clause 9 this final registration will be conclusive evidence of matters registered, except that claims to the ownership of land will never constitute evidence of title.
We have divided the three-year registration period into two periods of 18 months so that if no objections are made in the first period and no further claims are registered in the second claims period the registered claims will become established and indefeasible at the end of the first objection period: that is, within four years from the start of registration. And as further incentive we have made no charge for registration in the first period. In any case, there will be no charge for objections.
Disputed claims will be referred to commons commissioners—barristers or solicitors of at least seven years' standing appointed from a panel drawn up by the Lord Chancellor. Where the dispute involves difficult technical points, for example, relating to special farming practices in a particular area, the commons commissioner can be assisted by an assessor. The decision of the commons commissioner will be final and subject to appeal only on a point of law.
In addition to settling disputed claims, the commons commissioners, under Clause 8, will inquire into the ownership of land registered as common or a green where nobody has come forward to claim the land. Where the commons commissioner cannot establish who the owner is, the land, if it is a green, will be vested in the parish or district council. If it is a common, it will be vested as Parliament may later decide. Unclaimed town or village greens can be vested straightaway because they all provide local amenities and are similar in character—and clearly their responsibility is with the local authorities.
Commons, on the other hand, as I have said, vary widely in character and type, and we ought to wait until we have learnt more about the commons and the rights over them from their registration before we decide in whom the unclaimed commons should be vested. Commons, where


the facts are already recorded under statutory schemes or local Acts, can be exempted by Order. I shall need to be satisfied that the land is regulated statutorily, that no common rights have been exercised for at least 30 years and that the owner is known. All this is contained in Clause 10. I expect a fair number of commons, especially in urban areas will meet these requirements and there will be applications for exemption.
I have not fully accepted all the recommendations of the Royal Commission. The most important change is the shortening of the registration period. The Royal Commission recommended 12 years—eight years for registration of claims and four years for objections—but this has been reconsidered and discussed with all those concerned. There was general agreement that 12 years is too long and would provide unnecessary delay. I am sure that in the Bill we are affording sufficient and ample time both for claims and objections.
The Commission also recommended that the ownership of any common to which no claim had been registered should be vested in the Public Trustee. This would have placed unfamiliar duties on the Public Trustee and, in any case, as I have said, it seems better to leave the question of vesting until after registration has generally established the facts. Small commons used mainly for recreation might well be vested in the local authorities—like the greens: other areas suitable for example for conservation or research might be vested in suitable responsible authorities.

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that his noble Friend in another place gave an undertaking concerned with where ownership was not established and the word "lacuna" was used there? The undertaking was that power should be vested in local authorities for the purpose of criminal proceedings if necessary. Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to run away from that undertaking or does he intend to honour it?

Mr. Willey: The hon. Member will be delighted to know that I shall not run away from it, and in due course I will reach that point in my speech.
The Bill does not set out to make any changes in the extent of the commons or of the rights over them. It seeks to provide a public record of those which now exist. I know that some holders of common rights are wondering how they will be affected by the Bill—especially those whose grazing rights are not limited by actual numbers and who will be asked to state the numbers of stock to which their claims relate. They need not be apprehensive. The Bill seeks only to establish their rights as they now legally exist and this should be the basis of their claims.
In the case of a dispute, the commissioner will be concerned only to determine the extent of their rights. It may be that later there will be a need for rights to be adjusted, for example, following an increase in the stocking capacity of a common arising from the improvement of the grazing, but this is not affected by this Bill. It will be one of the problems which we shall have to tackle in the further commons legislation.
Unavoidably, a great deal of the detailed administration is left to regulations to be made under the Bill, but I assure the House that in drafting the regulations we intend to keen in close touch with the bodies affected.
The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) mentioned the discussions which we had in another place. We are fortunate that the Bill has already been subjected to close scrutiny by their Lordships and improved. The Government were encouraged to introduce Amendments strengthening the Bill. For example, Clause 4 now says in express terms that anyone may apply for land to be registered as common or a green: and anyone can do this even though he has no legal interest in the land. Then again, we have altered Clause 12 to enable any land which may in future be turned into common to be brought on to the registers.
More important, and this is the point which the hon. Member anticipated, the Government gave an undertaking to consider an amendment to enable local authorities to bring proceedings against anyone damaging or pillaging a common the ownership of which is not registered. The hon. Member will be delighted to know that an Amendment has now been


drafted which I hope will satisfy both the local authorities' associations as well as the Commons, Open Spaces and Footpaths Preservation Society, and I will be putting this down during the Committee stage.
This is a modest but necessary measure urgently needed. It is not an end in itself but a beginning. It is the first essential step towards recovering many thousands of acres of common land from neglect and preventing thousands more from falling into wasteful decay.
The Bill owes much to the work of many, most of all to the Royal Commission and its Chairman, Sir Ivor Jennings. The Bill is based on their massive and comprehensive Report. The Ramblers' Association and the Commons, Open Spaces and Footpaths Preservation Society ought to find comfort in its provisions, some of which owe a great deal to their officers and officials. Aptly enough, the Commons Preservation Society is this year celebrating its centenary. Everyone who enjoys our most ancient institution—our common land—owes a debt to their persistent vigilance.
I am aware of the interest of Ministers of Agriculture in the previous Government, in particular, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bedford (Mr. Soames) and his Parliamentary Secretary. I am encouraged by the concern for the countryside shared by many hon. Members on both sides of the House. These acknowledgments should commend the Bill to the House.
I do not often see eye to eye with Dr. Denman, but I conclude with the words with which he concluded his paper to the Royal Society of Arts:
Every week that passes aggravates the problem of our commons, deepens the confusions, blurs the land titles, encourages the loss of commons by illegal enclosure, strengthens the thickets of scrub, gorse and bracken, and leaves unchecked the public sandals. Even the existing statutory facilities are rusting for want of use. Nothing will be done until Parliament acts. Action on the lines of the Royal Commission's recommendation is urgently necessary. Get the common rights registered without delay. Then we can marshal the management committees and open a new chapter to the ancient and traditional story of our common lands.

4.2 p.m.

Mr. F. V. Corfield: This is a somewhat unusual Bill from a Parliamentary point of view, not

because it is unusual, or even as unusual as we sometimes like to pretend, that we have important Measures before us which are not controversial across party lines, but because it is unusual to find a Bill which deals with an immensely complex subject—no one can describe commons legislation as anything but that—which does not produce great controversy among outside interests and across party lines.
My mind is taken back to a somewhat similar subject, the Water Resources Bill which, happily, was extremely free of party political controversy, but which, nevertheless, produced vigorous clashes of interests outside. I must say that, in trying to handle that Bill, I was not sure that the absence of party controversy made it, necessarily, any easier to resolve the differences.
But, however that may be, we can congratulate the right hon. Gentleman because, in introducing this as the first Bill from his new Department, he appears to have steered clear, at least for the time being, of any very noticeable apprehension or opposition from any of the very large number of interests which can arise in connection with commons and village greens. This is because he has very wisely followed the decision of his Conservative predecessors to tackle the problem by stages.
As the right hon. Gentleman reminded us, the Bill is the outcome of recommendations of the Royal Commission which was appointed as long ago as 1955 and presented its Report to Parliament in 1958. Again, as the right hon. Gentleman reminded us, it is fair to say that that Report was welcomed on both sides of the House as a painstaking and very thorough investigation of the matter and, above all—this is something which, unfortunately, cannot always be said of such publications—a very readable account of a subject which derives not only its complexity but also, I suggest, its fascination from the fact that it has been so intimately connected with the evolution of our society since very early times.
We owe Sir Ivor Jennings and his fellow commissioners a deep debt of gratitude, and we on this side wish to be associated with the sentiments expressed by the right hon. Gentleman. As I remember them,


the Royal Commission's actual recommendations ran into two full chapters and the summary to something like 70 different items. It is, perhaps, good for us to bear in mind that the Bill, as I understand it, implements only 16 of the first 17 of those items, those grouped together under the two broad headings, "Registration" and "Commons Commissioners". Plainly, we must expect quite a long further stage in the journey towards the improvement and better use of our common land.
We understand that the periods for registration and objection, which the right hon. Gentleman, purely by a slip of the tongue, rather indicated were written into the Bill, which they are not, are intended to be substantially shorter than those recommended by the Royal Commission. Apart from that, the only other departure from the Royal Commission's recommendations which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned is the Government's refusal to accept the suggestion that, in the interim, commons should vest in the Public Trustee. We do not quarrel with him on that. I agree that the Public Trustee's office is not really suited for this type of function.
In their decision to shorten the periods and to confine their initial Bill to registration of commons and town and village greens and of the rights of common over them, the Government have, again, followed my right hon. Friends; and this we welcome. But, as the right hon. Gentleman said, there are many different types of common right. There are wide variations of custom between one part of the country and another and between one common and another. Many of the claims both to common rights and to the rights of the public in regard to access are vague and ill-defined. In addition, there are quite a number of important rights which are not really common rights at all in any legal sense. I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will be able to mention some of these other rights and the proposals he has for, so to speak, voluntary registration of such matters as the right or custom to play golf on a common. Clearly, although these are not common rights as such, they are important rights.
In the circumstances, it is clear that, before any serious consideration can be

given to the ways and means of improving the management of common lands so that better use can be made of them in the interests of the community, we shall require very much more accurate information in regard to the common rights which subsist over them, the extent to which those rights are still enjoyed, their value to individuals, and the extent to which rights of relatively small value may be interfering with better use of commons for something of greater value. We fully accept that registration is the first stage and that it can usefully be provided for as a separate operation, leaving the details by which improvement can be secured for the future.
We have also to accept that the proposed shortening of the periods for registration of claims and subsequent objections has been bought at a price. In paragraphs 284 to 286 of their Report, the Royal Commission made specific recommendations with regard to determination of ownership. Briefly, its suggestions were that the registration authority should register claims to ownership and then, at the end of the relevant period—the Royal Commission's proposal was 12 years—full particulars both of uncontested claims and of claims which had been contested but had been found good should be submitted along with the necessary plans to the Land Registry which would accept the prescribed forms and documents as sufficient evidence of title, inform owners of the relevant Land Registry number and the details entered on the Register, in that way assimilating the registration of common lands into the general Land Registry.
It seems to me that the question of finding out and recording ownership is of the essence of the operation. When we come to the end of the periods which the Government have in mind under the Bill, and the Government of the day come to consider, in the light of the material collected, how best to devise further legislation to ensure better use of common land, the first essential for any authority charged with the responsibility may well be to try to discover who is the owner.
We all know that there is a gulf between the two sides of the House on questions of nationalisation versus private ownership. Sometimes we think


that hon. Members opposite have rather scant regard for certain private property rights. But we certainly do not accuse them here of having gone through the process of setting up the registration machinery and burdening county and county borough councils with the task of carrying it out all for the purposes of establishing private rights and then to ignore what most people would regard as the fundamental private right, namely, the ownership of the land or, in ordinary parlance, the ownership of the freehold.
But, as I understand the Bill and the right hon. Gentleman, at the end of the day we shall be no further forward at all in knowing more about the ownership of common land. Of course, it is true, as he says, that Clause 1 provides for the registration under three heads, of which one is ownership. The others are, first, the registration of commons, village greens, town greens, and so on, which we might regard as registration of status, and, secondly, the registration of individual rights of common. But whereas failure to register either status or any particular common right results in the loss of that status or common right, there is no sanction against failure to register ownership. Even if it is registered, the register, even when all objections to the claim have been heard and determined, is in no way evidence as to ownership. As the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, Clause 9 makes clear that it is conclusive evidence only as to status and as to particular rights of common. So as far as I can see, even entries with regard to ownership really mean absolutely nothing.
I fully agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it may be undesirable for a number of reasons to duplicate any registration which has already been effected through the Land Registry. But it seems a pity that we are not taking the opportunity to supplement the information which the Land Registry has, which I understand is meagre in any case.
Again, I appreciate that claims of ownership to common land may in many cases be immensely complicated in law. It could well be that it could take more than five years to establish them. Some might prove more costly to establish than owners felt their value justified. Indeed, the mere fact of registration might

almost invite objection and, possibly, costly litigation. In these circumstances, I would be prepared to concede that it might be over-harsh to make failure to register result in permanent loss of rights, and I would concede that to include ownership in the same category as status and common rights with a view to producing a definitive result in, say, five years might well be unrealistic and that there may well be disadvantages—I think there would be—in prolonging that five-year period generally for that purpose.
But if every effort were made to encourage registration of ownership, I find it difficult to understand why details of such registrations as remained, after a reasonable period of time, unopposed, or, if opposed, after the claims had been adjudicated upon by the commons commissioner, should not be passed to the Land Registry and accepted as evidence of title. Nor, for that matter, do I really understand the difficulties in prescribing a different period for the registration of ownership, or for the hearing of objections to ownership, from those that are prescribed in relation to status and common rights. At least, we should be setting the matter in train. I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will deal with this aspect of the matter.
There is one further major point which seems to me to require considerably more explanation. I refer to Clause 14. As I understand, common rights of pasturage, pannage, and so forth, are sometimes limited to a definite number of animals, and sometimes they are unlimited. If these rights are attached to particular holdings—I think that "rights appendent" is the technical term—a number of unlimited rights will often be limited in practice by the old custom by which the total was limited by the carrying capacity of the common after taking into account the "levant and couchant" rights—I believe those are the terms—in other words, the number of animals which could be wintered on the holdings. But I do not think that this is always the case, and even if it is always the case, obviously such a limitation can only be extremely imprecise.
Again, the grazing capacity of land, particularly of common land, which, by definition, is often neglected agriculturally and does not have very generous treatment with fertilisers and so on,


changes very largely from one season to another and presumably, too, the limit on any one commoner must depend to some extent on the extent to which other commoners take up their rights, whether they are "appendent" or "appurtenant", "levant" or "couchant", or otherwise.
In any case, I think that I am right in saying that the rights that are "appurtenant"—that is, not attached to the holding—would presumably have no limit at all or there will be nothing by which to measure the limit if they are not limited in the deed of grant or whatever the document is, because there is no holding by which one can measure the wintering capacity. In any event, I would think that in this day and age the wintering capacity of a holding for this purpose would be fairly difficult to assess. I should think that there are very few livestock holdings which in these days find it economic to attempt to be self-supporting.
What I want to ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary is how he envisages the setting of limits in accordance with the requirements of Clause 14. I do not, of course, deny that at any rate on the face of it such a limit is probably a desirable objective, but there seem to be very considerable difficulties, particularly in circumstances where there may be a large number of claims which in toto add up to something clearly well in excess of what the common is likely to be able to carry. One also has to question in this regard whether there is much of a case for trying to fix such a limit for all time.
Although I appreciate the importance of common lands in very many cases as places primarily of public recreation, the value of very many others will remain primarily agricultural, and in the case of many more agriculture will continue to have very considerable potential importance even if only in a secondary rôle. Surely one of the objectives of this exercise on which we are embarking is to enable the commoners eventually to manage these sometimes very considerable areas for greater productivity and for the maintenance not of a fixed number of beasts but of a steadily increasing number. It seems to me, therefore, that what is required in this connection is, first, some indication as to how the commons commissioner is to decide on a limit to an un-

limited right or unlimited claim, and, secondly, an assurance that even when such a limit has been arrived at there will be opportunities for review.
I have taken up a little longer than I intended, but there are certainly other matters on which we shall want further information and on which no doubt we shall have suggestions to make for improvement in Committee. For the moment, I would only say that I hope that the Government are already looking to the next stage and will be able to give us some idea of what they have in mind. In particular, I ask them not to be too dogmatic, let alone doctrinaire, on this.
Recommendation No. 23 in the Report of the Royal Commission stated that
Land which is common at the passing of the Act should remain common. There should be no inclosure…except in cases of compulsory acquisition by public authorities in accordance with Special Parliamentary Procedure and of unimportant pieces of roadside strip…
Recommendation No. 24 was that
…Inclosure Acts and of other Acts authorising inclosure without the sanction of Parliament should be repealed but without prejudice to schemes made under them.
That is a recommendation that I very much hope will not be adopted too literally. It seems to me, even from my own somewhat casual observations about the countryside, that a number of commons in rural areas are either too small or too remote or otherwise inappropriately situated to provide anything of real amenity or recreational value to local residents, let alone to the public at large.
These commons are quite literally waste and, as the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, all too often they become dumping grounds for refuse, generally of the most bulky and indestructible sort, and really would, in some cases, be infinitely better enclosed and merged with neighbouring agricultural land in private ownership.

Mr. J. T. Price: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because he is only partially stating the question at issue. Commons may be used as dumping grounds in certain cases, but is not he aware, from his reading of history, of what took place, for example, under enclosure from 1760 to 1832, when vast areas of the Pennines


were enclosed by landowners' Parliaments under special Acts? The result was that, though this had been free common land for many hundreds of years, it was enclosed and became grouse moors and very valuable property to those who assumed ownership against the public interest. This is a very important matter. It is not doctrinaire, but simply a matter of history.

Mr. Corfield: I do not think that the ho 1. Gentleman's history is very sound. Practically the whole of English agriculture—I do not know about Welsh and Scottish agriculture—sprang from the manorial system. Practically every village had its own land which was common to the owners. Our situation both in 1917 and 1943 would have been very grave indeed if we had not had the enclosures. There is no doubt that to have gone on with what the hon. Gentleman has in mind, with large quantities of our best agricultural land retained as open runs, would have greatly impoverished this country and the evolution of the society which has been built upon it.
I think that the only thing to do with the commons which would be better enclosed—there may not be many of them—is to throw them together with neighbouring land. That is purely why I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to take a doctrinaire approach when he comes to the second or maybe the third stage of this operation. It may be that, occasionally, similar considerations will apply to small plots of common land in urban areas, but in any case, if we can have an open mind, they should be dealt with on their merits. I hope that, in considering the ultimate use and management of these common lands, the way will be left open to consider each common on its merits, since commons vary enormously both in type and in the rights exercised on them.
We welcome the Bill and congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on introducing it, on taking it down gratefully from the pigeon-hole without asking too much about its political ownership—indeed, on finding a useful purpose for his Ministry. We say that without personal offence to him. He must blame the Prime Minister for putting him in a position in which he is teased and in

which he will go on being teased. Nevertheless, I would add that one of the problems involved here is the further increase, although perhaps marginal, of the burden on local authorities.
There is no doubt that the staffing position in many areas is quite difficult and it is perhaps a little strange that the right hon. Gentleman, having been denied planning powers on the ground that these must be looked after by the Minister of Housing and Local Government, should be presenting a Measure which apparently puts duties exclusively on the local authorities. But we can assure him of our co-operation in Standing Committee in scrutinising the Bill in the utmost detail and helping him, as he will be anxious to have our help, in its improvement.

4.25 p.m.

Mr. Carol Johnson: I join with the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) in welcoming the Bill and congratulating the Government on introducing it at the present time. As the hon. Member pointed out, this is the first Bill to be presented by my right hon. Friend as Minister of Land and Natural Resources, and from what I hear about other Bills in the pipeline it may well be less controversial than some that we shall deal with later.
As my right hon. Friend pointed out, it is nearly seven years since publication of the Report of the Royal Commission on Common Land. Since then, previous Administrations have often been pressed to take action but it has been left to a Labour Government, in this as in so many other cases, to make progress where there has been delay for so long. If what the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South has said about the Bill having been in a pigeon-hole is correct, I am very surprised that we were quite unable to get from the Minister previously responsible—the former Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—any assurance at all about the introduction of legislation.
This is a very important matter. The Royal Commission referred to common land as being the last reserve of uncommitted land in the country. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, no one really knows the exact extent of common land,


although it may well be approximately 1½million acres, as he indicated. The difficulty in making any accurate assessment can be illustrated by the reply given to the Royal Commission by representatives of a county council when the Commission was trying to find out the exact extent of common land in that county. They said that it was quite impossible to state this with any precision and that the common land in the county might be anything between 100,000 and 200,000 acres.
It is this element of uncertainty and, indeed, ignorance of the exact position which is one of the main justifications for the Bill, for clearly, in a small island, with a large and rapidly growing population, it is imperative to have a far more exact knowledge about our land. I have no doubt that the Bill is a step in the right direction.
However, although we may all agree that the clouds of ignorance must be dispersed, this is not likely to prove in every way an easy operation. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, quite a number of serious problems are connected with common land and I want to refer to one or two of these. I hope that my right hon. Friend will not feel that I am being too critical if I say that much of his speech could only be appreciated by someone familiar at least with the outlines of the Royal Commission Report. I think that there is so much public ignorance about the position in regard to common land that it may be as well in this debate to state in simple terms what the exact position is in law, as I see it.
As I understand, common land is simply land owned by a private individual over which other private individuals have certain rights. Indeed, the very word "common" is derived from the community of interest which arises between the parties directly concerned and does not, as so many people assume, denote land available for the use of the public, although there are, of course, many commons in the country which, by Statute, have become dedicated to public use and enjoyment. However, one must keep in mind that it is the legal position which makes the Bill necessary, and by taking the first step of registering

these various private interests we shall at least have a starting point.
Despite what I have said about the legal position, there is no doubt that, in practice, for the past century or so, common land has been regarded as of the greatest importance from the point of view of public access for recreational purposes. The Commons, Open Spaces and Footpaths Preservation Society, with which I have been associated for many years, celebrates its centenary this year, and throughout the whole of the past century it has resisted any untoward attack on or threat to commons, primarily in the interests of the general public. Moreover, from time to time Parliament itself has accepted the need to consider commons from the same viewpoint.
Legislation has created a legal right of access to some commons. These are those in the metropolitan area, commons wholly or partly within boroughs or urban districts, commons where the rural district council has made a scheme of regulation, commons where the owner has executed a deed to give the public a right of access—and such owners should be honoured for it—National Trust commons and certain commons which are regulated by private Acts. All these commons taken together cover only approximately 300,000 to 350,000 acres, representing only one-quarter of the probable total acreage of commons
Apart from these specific cases which I have mentioned, over all the rest of the commons the public in law has no right of access at all, but in practice, as we all know, the general public expects and is accustomed to use nearly all commons and would no doubt be very surprised to learn that it had no right to do so. One of the reasons why this situation has developed may be that neither owners nor commoners enjoying private rights can in general fence the land so as to keep out the public. In the light of all this, it seems high time that Parliament intervened to regularise the position generally, and the Bill marks the first stage of what may well be a very lengthy process.
Part of the process is finding ways and means of telling the public exactly what the position is and what the Bill and future legislation will seek to do. There is no doubt that most members


of the public if questioned about commons would say that they regarded them as some kind of public land. Though they might be completely wrong in law, we all know that in practice there is this misconception and it is quite understandable, but as there is a clear case where law and practice are completely out of date, it seems necessary for Parliament to intervene to protect the public interest which has been enjoyed for so long.
The Royal Commission included a specific recommendation that the public should be given a right of access to all lands subject to the usual byelaws which are made in respect of land open to access. It is a great pity that this recommendation has not been included in the Bill and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give us a firm assurance that the Government intend to implement this recommendation in future legislation.
I should like now to turn to the important subject of applications for the registration of common land by members of the public. On this subject the original Bill was greatly improved in another place by an Amendment to enable members of the public, as well as voluntary societies like the Commons Preservation Society, to apply for registration. We particularly welcome this change, for it would have been disastrous if applications for registration had been limited to those having a legal interest in the commons. Having said that, I think that it should be appreciated that members of the public who seek to apply for registration may well find themselves faced with grave difficulties.
It is clear that for many people the real use and value of common land is its recreational use by members of the public, but under the Bill no such use, no matter for how long it has been exercised, will be a ground for registration. On the other hand, it will be a good ground for registration if it can be shown that a farmer in the 1920s turned out animals to graze, or that a cottager cut bean sticks for his garden. I do not want to underrate these rights in any way; on the contrary, they are extremely important and it is greatly to be hoped that those who enjoy them will take proper steps to register.
But in the light of this it should be appreciated that there will inevitably be many members of the public who will find it puzzling to understand why the exercise of private rights over commons 30 or 40 years ago is a good ground for registration, and rightly so, while extensive and continuous modern recreational use is not. That is why I referred earlier to the necessity for keeping the public informed and I press the Minister directly the Bill becomes law to see that explanatory memoranda and leaflets are readily available to those who are interested.
I should like to refer briefly to the agricultural use of commons. Although I have been dealing mainly with their recreational use, I am not unmindful of this other aspect. It is frequently said today that the main problem of the countryside is to harmonise the interests of the farmer with those of the townsman and the commuter. Generally, commons are areas where agricultural and recreational interests can be harmonised.
I will go further and suggest that they are often essential one to the other. If common rights, particularly those of grazing, cease to be exercised, a common can quickly become overgrown with scrub and bracken and be practically useless to both the commoner and members of the public. Where there is considerable use of a common the local authority will often undertake drainage and returfing and so on to the benefit of the commoners as well as the public and I am sure that this is the sort of thing which the Minister has in mind. For this reason it is important not to regard the Bill as an end in itself, but merely as a step towards the proper management of commons in the joint interests of commoners and the public.
I had intended to refer to some of the problems likely to arise with unclaimed commons, but, in view of the clear assurance of my right hon. Friend that he will introduce an Amendment so that local authorities may protect such commons from encroachment and damage and so on, I think that we must wait and see what he has to propose, although I should like to thank him on behalf of the Commons Preservation Society and other bodies who made representations to him on this matter.
The last matter to which I wish to refer is the adequacy of the definition of


"common rights", contained in Clause 21. I know that this question bristles with difficulties, but I sat this morning in the Library with the definition before me and looked up in the law books and law dictionaries' statements on what are common rights. It seems to me that, comparing the two, the definition needs to be broadened a little. As at present drafted, it seems to refer only to rights of grazing.
It is true that the use of the word "includes" indicates that other rights are intended to be covered, but surely, having regard to the past history of commons, it would be appropriate, in a Bill of this character, to refer to those important rights of common which have such a delightful medieval flavour, such as turbary, which is the cutting of turf or peat; piscary, which is the taking of fish; pannage, which is the turning out of pigs; and estovers, which apparently cover much more than the taking of wood and timber.
For these reasons, I hope that the Minister and his legal advisers will consider whether at a later stage they can find a definition which will clearly as well as implicitly cover these other rights which can be of considerable importance both to the farmer and to the cottager.
I have tried to be constructive in my approach to this Measure, but I also wish to emphasise my firm support for the main purpose of the Bill. By and large, it is a very good Bill, and if in Committee hon. Members on both sides of the House can co-operate in making it even better I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister will welcome our efforts. A distinguished Member of the House in the last century, Mr. George Shaw-Lefevre, who afterwards became Lord Everslev, and who held high Ministerial office for most of his life, nevertheless found time to help in establishing the Commons Preservation Society and being its chairman for very many years. He was passionately devoted to protecting the commons.
I can confirm what my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) recently said, that during the nineteenth century these fights were long and very grim. Lord Eversley once referred to commons as
reservoirs of fresh air and health. whence tresh breezes blow into the adjoining town.

They bring home to the poorest something of the sense and beauty of nature.
They are, in my view, as important today as ever they were.
In this Bill, Parliament is taking the first step to preserve and improve a community asset, and its efforts will, I am sure, be welcomed everywhere.

4.44 p.m.

Sir Henry Studholme: I am very glad to welcome the Bill. To all intents and purposes, I think that it must be pretty well the same Bill which the Conservative Government had on the stocks and which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Soames), the then Minister of Agriculture, assured me, contrary to what the hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. Carol Johnson) said, a Conservative Government would introduce at an early date had we been returned to power last October.
In particular, I am interested in the Bill for the effect that it will have on hill farming in Devon. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) knows, having been Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture in the last Government, I have been campaigning for a long time for legislation to ensure that there was a proper standard of animal husbandry on Dartmoor, a large part of which lies in my constituency. That is an aim which many people have been pursuing, not least among them being the Dartmoor Commoners' Association, which is composed of farmers who run stock upon Dartmoor and who, in their memorandum of evidence to the Royal Commission on common lands, laid down an admirable set of rules for good animal husbandry on the Moor.
It is only fair to the Dartmoor Commoners' Association to say that it is not its fault that we are still without legislation to enforce these rules, although, thanks to its efforts, much has been done to improve the standard of hill farming in that area. I should like to pay tribute to the work of its secretary, my friend and constituent, Mr. Tom Brown, of Tavistock.
Many of us on and around Dartmoor would have liked to see a special Act introduced for Dartmoor on the lines of the New Forest Act, which works


extremely well. However, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bedford and his predecessor, now Lord Blakenham, made it clear that they were not prepared to tackle the question of common land piecemeal and that it was a nation-wide problem and should be considered as such. No doubt they were right. As I have said, legislation was already prepared for introduction this year.
The problem, as anybody who has taken the trouble to study it knows, is extremely complicated because of the ancient grazing rights and other rights of commoners which go back for centuries into the midst of time. The first step before any detailed legislation can be introduced is to discover who exactly the commoners are and what are their rights and obligations. In the case of the New Forest, the task was comparatively easy because the new atlas of the commoners, as it is called, was based on the Registration of Common Rights Act, 1853. I see that Clause 10 of the Bill exempts the New Forest from registration because registration has already been carried out there.
There is no such register in the case of Dartmoor. Indeed, I believe that technically anybody living in Devon, except the burgesses of Totnes and Barnstaple, for some reason, is entitled to pasture animals on Dartmoor, though in practice it is only those who live adjacent who do so.
The Bill provides the first step, which is the registration of rights. I am glad that in Clause I the Minister confirms the opinion expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bedford that three years be allowed for registration and that two years should be allowed afterwards for objections instead of the 12 years in all recommended by the Royal Commission. Surely five years should be long enough. That means that by about the early 1970s—perhaps 1972, judging from the date which the Minister gave us—a Conservative Government—and of course there will be one long before that—will be able to proceed with legislation for the proper management and improvement of common land.
Meantime, I hope that we shall hear from the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary what further legislation the

Government have in mind. We should like to know, for instance, whether on Dartmoor the Minister recommends that a code of animal husbandry similar to that drawn up by the Dartmoor Commoners Association be made enforceable. At present, there are no legal sanctions against anyone not conforming to the required standard. Though such cases are few, they do exist and they bring discredit on moorland farmers. A statement of intention by the Minister would have a salutary effect on any delinquents. Would the Minister be prepared to consome such body as a court of verderers similar to that in the New Forest which sider in the case of Dartmoor setting up controls animal husbandry there?
I have carefully read the speech by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Mitchison, which he made in another place on Second Reading. He gave a very clear explanation of its contents, as indeed has the Minister who introduced the Bill here today. I am very glad to see that Lord Mitchison referred to the fact that the National Parks Act lays down that members of the public, in exercising their rights, should not interfere with the rights of other people. These include the rights of agriculture and forestry. I am as keen as anybody about the National Parks. I want to preserve their peace and natural beauty, which is what people come there to enjoy. I hate to see motor cars sprawling everywhere over moorland tracks and litter louts spreading their mess around, which appears to be the only sort of exercise which many of them take.
Some National Park enthusiasts, however, seem to find it convenient, when speaking or writing about the parks, to ignore the legitimate interests of farming and forestry, which are specifically laid down in the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, and the interests of those who live and work in the national parks and who depend upon those industries for their living. There are also in some cases the interests of the training of the Services which, in this wicked and dangerous world, unfortunately, have to be considered. If we could have a little more consideration and understanding all round of the rights of others, we should get on much better.
I am, however, digressing from the


Bill. I conclude by repeating that I welcome the Bill as a first step towards ensuring that all the commons of our country are properly managed and preserved, because they are a precious part of our heritage. I am sorry to see that no hon. Member of the Liberal Party is present, because the Liberals have always professed a great interest in National Parks and commons. The only hon. Member of that party who was present earlier has now left the Chamber.

4.52 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: I intend to be very short and not to comment generally on the provisions and objects of the Bill. I agree with hon. Members on both sides who have spoken that it is an excellent Bill and that it is overdue, particularly for the great bulk of miscellaneous and unclassified land. I am, however, anxious to probe a little further into the exemption provisions.
I rise to inquire why the New Forest and Epping Forest are specifically excluded from the operation of the Bill while an open space of the size, importance, definition and antiquity of, say, Wimbledon and Putney Commons is included. Wimbledon and Putney Commons are a fine stretch of open country within a short distance of this House and I am sure that that area is well known to hon. Members.
I should declare my interest, because I am one of the three specially appointed conservators of Wimbledon Common. Five of us are elected and three are appointed, and I am the nominee of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. I regard it as a privilege to be one of the governing body of that fine open space. It is what remains of my former Parliamentary interest in the Wimbledon area. I and my fellow conservators are charged with the duty of keeping for ever these commons open and unenclosed. This is a duty which we discharge faithfully, I hope.
Like Epping and the New Forest, Wimbledon is governed by its own special Act of Parliament, which was passed in 1871. It is also independent of local rating authorities, of local taxation in any form and of control as such in any way by local authorities. It is, therefore, odd

that Epping and the New Forest should be specifically excluded but Wimbledon included. I am sure that this argument could be taken further to other defined commons under their own special Acts.
As my right hon. Friend the Minister knows, the issue has already been discussed between his Department and the Wimbledon conservators and I think that I am right in saying that my right hon. Friend accepts that the case for Wimbledon to be excluded from the registration provisions if application is made under Clause 10 is strong. I also accept that the Bill makes special provision for exemption where a common is already governed under a special Act where the owner of the land is known—in the case of Wimbledon and Putney, it would be the conservators—and where the commons rights have not been exercised for a very long time, I think for 50 years. Apparently, the advice that has been offered is that Wimbledon would probably easily get exemption from registration, but in the process of obtaining exemption a number of issues of right might easily be raised which would, perhaps, remain better buried because the present administration of these commons is satisfactory and has worked extremely well for over 90 years.
I should like to have from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary when he replies a fuller explanation on this point than has been given, particularly in regard to the London area and why Epping should be out but Wimbledon and Putney in. I should have thought that they could easily have been bracketed together. I should also like an assurance that when this important, if perhaps small, Bill goes to Committee, the issue may be looked at again with a view to the provision for specific exemption being further extended.

4.57 p.m.

Mr. Michael Jopling: Like every other hon. Member who has spoken on the Bill so far, I should like to extend a warm welcome to it. It is a Measure which is of enormous and vital interest to my constituents, because, according to the estimates of the Royal Commission, Westmorland has 130,000 acres of common land and this constitutes no less than 25 per cent. of my constituency. This is an astonishingly high figure.
Throughout the remainder of England and Wales, 1 acre in 25 is estimated to be common land, whereas in my constituency the ratio is 1 in 4.
The north of England has an enormous wide expanse of common land stretching right across the country. If we take together the North Riding of Yorkshire, where I live and farm and have been brought up, and with my constituency of Westmorland, they account for one-third of the common land in England. According to the estimates of the Royal Commission, the four northern counties of Cumberland and Westmorland and the North and West Ridings of Yorkshire comprise well over half the comman land in England.
The Bill will be very much welcomed by my constituents because, as the Minister has said, the present position is extraordinarily vague. At the root of all this is the uncertainty of who the commoners are. Even if it is known in certain circumstances who has rights on commons, one often finds that there is one awkward person who will not comply or co-operate, w th the result that improvements which are vitally necessary for the public good cannot be undertaken.
I am thinking particularly of roadside fencing which is very important for sheep farmers. I am sure that many hon. Members will know of sheep farmers who have had to give up grazing their flocks on common land to which they have rights because of the appalling slaughter of the animals resulting from collisions with motor vehicles.
We are not using the resources of our common land to the full. This is a tragedy and in itself a good reason for welcoming the Bill. Agriculturally, there are tremendous improvements which could be made to common land. Although I am sure we are all glad to see the Joint Parliamentary Secretary "in the wings" we are very sorry that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has not attended the debate. This is an enormous problem from the point of view of agriculture and worthy of his attention. Once the Bill has been passed it will lead to further legislation which, with the co-operation and good will of those people who have rights on them will enable the commons to be improved. I think that "co-operation" is the vital word.
So much of the problem over common land in Westmorland—this applies also to other parts of the country particularly the South-West—can be traced back to overstocking. Much common land is abominably overstocked and consequently the herbage is of a very poor quality. A great improvement may be made in the agricultural value of our common land in future if new techniques of sheep management are evolved, which I think is very likely within the next ten years or so.
It may well be that those people who run sheep on common land may not be forced, as they are at present, to turn their sheep on to the common too early in the year, with the consequent "hammering" of the best of the grasses which are the early growing grasses. This results in a reduction of the grazing value of the whole common. I hope that, as a consequence of the Bill, we shall see many more cattle on common land, as has happened in the past, because many farmers went into milk production and took their herds off the common to the inside land nearer to home. I hope that more can be done to kill the bracken. Its presence is one of the reasons why farmers are not anxious to turn their cattle on to the commons, because it is poisonous. Ultimately, when the second stage of legislation is produced, I hope that we shall see a heartening rise in incomes in respect of those farms in some of the marginal hill areas.
The point to which I wish particularly to refer has already been mentioned, the vexatious Clause 14. When the Bill was being discussed in another place Lord Mitchison, during the Second Reading debate, dealt with Clause 14 in a very terse way. All he said about it was that it deals with a rather technical matter and that, I think, was the understatement of the debate. Without any question this is the most controversial part of the Measure. It has been said that a more controversial Bill will appear in the 1970s, but I think that the Bill may well prove to be sufficiently controversial, and it is vital that we should have a clear understanding from the Minister of what is intended.
According to the estimates made by the Royal Commission, of the 130,000 acres of common land in Westmorland,


30,000 consist of stinted grazing which means that there is a restriction on the number of stock allowed to graze there. The remaining 100,000 acres provide free and unstinted grazing. Many farms let or sold in the north-west of England are advertised as being with unlimited grazing rights on the commons. When the Bill becomes law and the registers are open, those people who feel that they have claims in respect of common rights will make them, and in many cases we shall be faced with very extravagant claims quite out of proportion to what is right, proper and fair. In my constituency, as in other parts of England and Wales, it is the custom that people owning or renting land adjoining the common have rights to graze their stock on the common.
This means that an enormous number of people will, quite legitimately, be able to claim rights on the common because of a variety of factors. It is also true that anyone who has built a house in years gone by on land to which were attached rights to graze on the common will be able to claim that they have unlimited grazing rights. I believe that there will be a flood of claims registered under the Bill by people who feel that they have unlimited rights in respect of commons. Some people may claim for 200 sheep and others for 500 or even 1,000, and it will be difficult to say that a claim is not a right one. No doubt there will be a flood of objections from those who consider that people have claimed unfairly. I imagine that for nearly every claim made there will be an objection.
These matters will be passed to the commons commissioner under Clause 5(7). We must be given some sort of view from the Parliamentary Secretary about what yardstick the commissioner will use to deal with these objections and to settle the quantification—to use an awful word—of the rights to graze and whether it should be the acreage of inside or in-by land which the farmers have and on which they winter their animals. Over the years many people may have discontinued the grazing of stock on the commons for a variety of reasons. Perhaps some engaged in agriculture may have established milking herds, particularly during the wartime when they may have been asked to change their system of farming in the national interest. They may not have

exercised their rights in previous years and some unfairness would arise over rental values.
It is essential that those people who have rights which they can establish should be allocated something. It would be quite wrong if people who claim rights which they have not used for many years are refused those rights. I think that it is also true, on the other hand—I suppose that the answer is a balance between the two—that some weight should be given to what is the present usage of grazing on the commons, that those people who have been grazing a number of animals on the commons should have some sort of weighting in favour of them, because of the existing use.
Another thing which is enormously important in this context is that these rights should be exercisable, because no doubt many farmers and other people will be allocated rights to graze on commons which they are not likely to use, but which are legal and proper rights. It should be arranged so that they can either rent them, or even sell them if they are theirs to sell, to other commoners. Certainly, I would specify that it must only be to other commoners, because what we must try to aim for is a centralisation of the grazing rights of these commons, and to try to stop fragmentation as much as possible. I hope that we shall have some indication of this in the winding-up speech.
It is not, of course, as easy as many people think, for people who suddenly find that they have rights to graze on commons—particularly the upland hill commons in the north of England—to use them. Many laymen would think that all somebody would have to do would be to buy some sheep and put them on the common. This is not true with the sheep which one finds on most of the upland commons. They were bred there, they are what is known as hefted sheep and they know their way around the fell. Anybody who puts outside sheep on such a fell would find that they just wander away or die, or probably both. I hope that the other thing, in terms of quantification, which the Minister will look at again and which we shall hear about later is the allowance for increases at a later date. Clause 14(1) refers to


the rights being exercised in relation to no more animals. I am sure that he will take the point that if the grazing capabilities of the common are increased, these rights can be increased proportionately in years to come.
The next point with which I should like to deal briefly is one which has been dealt with already, and that is the rights which are to be registered. This is of enormous importance. Clause 21 refers to certain specific rights which should be registered. It refers to cattlegates or beastgates—another word for stints—to sole or several vesture, which means the rights to take the produce of the sole, and the rights to sole and several pasture, which means the grazing rights. I hope that, as these three items are listed in Clause 21, it should be considered whether or not certain other specific rights also ought to be considered and registered.
I am thinking particularly of rights—which exist particularly, I know, in the northern commons—like rights of public watering places and rights to take stone. These are rights which were exercised frequently in the past and which are still exercised in many cases. I am told that it would be a very great benefit in the future if they were still registered under this legislation.
Turning to the actual mechanics of registration, these will be a matter for the county councils to organise. It can be imagined that, in a county like Westmorland, with such an enormous proportion of its land being common land and such a relatively low population, it will be an enormous job. The Clerk to the Westmorland County Council informs me that he expects that two or three members of his staff will have to spend a substantial part of their time over the next few years engaged in this job alone. I am particularly glad that the Amendment which was submitted in another Wace, that the registering duty should be vested in the district councils, was over-ruled. I think that, certainly in the case of Westmorland, that is much too big a job for the district councils. I am glad that it is still to be vested in the county councils.
There is a potential difficulty here which affects my constituency. It is one which I should be most grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would look at.

Clause 18(2) says that regulations may make provisions for the preparation of maps to accompany applications. This provision is absolutely essential in Westmorland, because, as I understand from the Ordnance Survey authorities, certain parts of my constituency—I understand that it is the only one in England, though I may be wrong on that point—are not covered by the Ordnance Survey 25-inch county series plans. These are the plans on which one finds the acreages and Ordnance Survey numbers and which refer to the parcels of land.
I hope that the Minister will look at this to make sure that there will be no difficulties arising because of the difficulty of specifying exactly to what land people are referring when they register claims for ownership or rights. I am certain that misunderstanding could arise here. There is no question at all that maps must be provided—presumably they will have to be the six inch maps—but I should be grateful if the Minister would look at this to make sure that no difficulties will arise. An enormous number of registrations is likely to be made, certainly in my constituency. The clerk to the county council estimates that 266 parcels of land will be registered over the next few years.
The last point which I want to mention is that of proper publicity for the measures which are included in the Bill. It has been said that the bulk of the publicity will be contained in the newspapers, but, knowing country people very well and being one myself, I know that they are reluctant to read legal notices, and if they read them they rarely understand them. I hope that we shall find an extensive and an effective way of getting publicity around about what is included in the Bill and what is to be done. I hope that a certain amount of extravagance will be shown in expenditure in getting these provisions known, and that there will be some sort of an individual approach—perhaps notices sent with the rates demands—so that everybody, if possible, is given notice of the importance of registering during the three year period.
During this period and during the two years which follow it for objections, I should have thought that it would be wise if annual notices of the existing state


of the register were displayed locally in areas where there have been registrations. There are many places in most country districts, certainly in country towns, where these notices could be displayed. I should have thought that this was very important. I also noticed that, in Clause 18, there is provision for information to be given for a charge. Again, one hates to pay to get this sort of information, which may or may not be necessary. I should have thought that this was a mistake. I should have hoped that anybody who wanted information about what the present register is would be able to get it without payment.
I have spoken for longer than I intended, but I hope that I have not delayed the House for too long on this matter. As I have tried to explain, this Measure is one of fundamental importance to my constituents and is one which, I am sure, will be welcomed and will lead to important and fundamental changes in the country in the future.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. Leo Abse: I regard myself as fortunate in having followed in the debate the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling), because, if anything, his speech reveals the need, which has been pointed out by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary in another place, when further legislation ultimately follows, for such legislation to be elastic and to deal with local and particular difficulties. The problems about which I wish to speak, and the attitude which I and many other Welsh Members will bring to the problem is somewhat different, and has a marked degree of difference in emphasis, from that of the hon. Member for Westmorland.
For many years no group of Members has pressed for this type of legislation more than have the Members representing Welsh constituencies. For seven years we have had a dusty answer from Conservative Governments. We therefore welcome the fact that at long last a problem which is of fundamental importance to Wales is to be tackled. We have a large problem. While 1 million out of 32 million acres of land in England are common land, in Wales out of 5 million acres, nearly half-a-million acres are common land. The very dimensions of our

common land mean that in many areas there is much cause for concern about many of the problems attendant upon common land.
From Wales we welcome a Bill such as this for a variety of reasons. We welcome it, for example, because we are bound to have apprehensions when the Royal Commission reveals that in Montgomery, whereas there were, in 1873, 109,000 acres of common land, all they can now discover is 8,276 acres. That there should be some control over common land in a county such as that is in this way dramatically revealed. When we see encroachments of this kind possibly taking place, we see the need for the community interest to be adequately safeguarded.
Again, we welcome the Bill because we realise that it could be a precursor to legislation which could help in some measure to meet the problem of the depopulation of Mid-Wales. In counties such as Radnorshire there are large areas of common land which undoubtedly could be used for reafforestation, and the fact that they are not being so used is due to the vague character of the existing position. We have here a Bill which will clearly help in giving definition in order that it will become possible to use, ultimately, far more fruitfully some of the land which at present is being so fecklessly disregarded and which could he used for more effective purposes.
But it is not for those reasons that I have presumed to join in the debate. It is because throughout the valleys of South Wales, and particularly in many of the valleys of Glamorganshire and Monmouthshire, we have a totally different problem arising out of the existence of large tracts of common land. Other hon. Members have spoken of the problems which arise because they fear that those who live in urban areas may not be able to enjoy the amenities of country life. Our problem in South Wales is quite different, and it is that the common land completely engulfs and overwhelms our urban areas.
The common land in our industrial counties, in the industrial valleys of Glamorgan and Monmouthshire is such that these industrial valleys are completely surrounded by common land upon which there are extensive grazing rights. In


Monmouthshire, my own county, nearly 10 per cent. of the surface of the county is common land; two-thirds of the 50,000 acres of rough grazing land in our county is common land, and almost every acre of the common land—99 per cent.—is stinted pasture, in contrast to the position in any other county of England and Wales. One begins to realise the seriousness of this position.
The hon. Member for Westmorland defended his sheep with great passion. There is evidently an identity of interest between the sheep and his electorate. But, as we should expect among an intelligent electorate in the valleys of South Wales, there is no such identity of interest. There is a mutual antagonism. The sophisticated intelligence expressed in electoral terms in South Wales has even brushed off upon the Welsh sheep. They are not only subsidised in the hills, but they make certain that they are subsided in the gardens and in the houses of my constituents.
This is a serious problem in the valleys of South Wales. It cannot be regarded lightly by any man who is a gardener or who holds an allotment. He cannot regard it lightly that overnight all his work for a year can be pillaged because of the intrusion of sheep.
I listen with great interest to the hon. Member for Westmorland describing how the motor cars were mowing down sheep in his constituency, but I am far more concerned to find that in areas like Varteg in my constituency we have ponies which come down and pound through housing estates. I am more concerned with the lives of the children and the wives of my constituents than with those of the sheep of Westmorland. I know that we shall never overcome this extraordinarily difficult problem until we have a definition as to who has these common rights and where they are, but the Bill is the beginning of an effort to establish what all these rights are.
I trust that what it will mean is that when we have defined, in the way the Bill attempts to define, the rights which may be: held over common land, in future legislation—especially bearing in the mind the difficulties of areas such as South Wales, where we have the anachronism of such vast tracts of common land in urban areas—it will be possible, in the interests of those urban communities in the Indus-

trial valleys, to take the appropriate steps to extinguish rights which quite clearly are inimical to the common weal. This must come about, because we cannot possibly have a situation in which thousands of sheep can exist in industrial valleys so as to make it quite impossible for any man to enjoy the amenities which are his right in urban life.
In common with all Welsh Members, I therefore welcome the Bill, which at last takes a step to resolve this old problem. The problem has always been there. It was a burning problem 50 years ago. I recollect speaking in one of our industrial valleys about the Common Market and making a erudite speech, when the Common Market controversy was at its height. When I paused at the end of the speech and waited for questions, I was asked, "What will be the effects of the Common Market upon the sheep grazing in the valley?" This is an important problem in South Wales, and for too long it has been taken for granted as being a matter for levity instead of being a serious detriment to all.
I conclude on a note of warning to the Minister on a somewhat unrelated matter. He has been invited by several hon. Members on both sides of the House—and he may have been captivated by the picturesque language which may be attached to the infinite number of rights over commission land—to enumerate those rights. I urge him to be careful. In Wales we have the term ty-un-nos, which means "house overnight". It means that if one builds a house overnight and if smoke can be seen coming from the chimney in the morning one has the right to keep the house on that site.
I appreciate how smooth the relations are between the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. I hope that my right hon. Friend will not enumerate rights of this kind in a way which might cause difficulty between the two Ministries, both of which are jealous of their respective rights.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: To return to an earlier part of the hon. Gentleman's speech, I was wondering what answer he gave to that question about sheep and the Common Market, particularly since it looks as though both


sides of the House are now agreed that it might be a good thing for us to join the Common Market.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Dr. Horace King): If the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) answered that he would be out of order.

Mr. Abse: That is exactly what I told the meeting at the time. Since the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) originally came from Caerphilly, he must be aware that the problem with which I was dealing is infinitely difficult of solution, without dragging in the Common Market. There is another serious problem now, for his intervention has spoilt my peroration and he has placed me in the difficulty of having to end my speech abruptly, by saying how pleased Wales is that the present Labour Government have taken this step forward.

5.33 p.m.

Mr. Ray Mawby: I sympathise with the constitutents of the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), because the difficulties about which he spoke are by no means confined to Wales. Most parts of the country face similar difficulties, no doubt because people are expected to fence against animals rather than the owners of the animals being expected to fence their animals in. This reminds me of the man who applied for a licence to purchase wire mesh during the war to keep in some birds. His request was refused. He then applied for a licence to obtain wire mesh to keep animals out. He got the wire mesh.
Discussion about the enclosure of animals often causes difficulty because of the misunderstandings that arise. I hope that in future it will be possible to fence certain areas of the country, particularly where animals encroach on to main roads and into urban areas. The urban dweller should have the right to feel that property will not be desecrated by what he regards as a herd of wild animals. I hope that this will be only one benefit which will flow from the Bill.
I add my congratulations to the Minister on having brought the Measure forward, because I was associated with my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock (Sir H. Studholme) for a number of years in trying to tackle this problem. We were concerned, first, with the question

of animal husbandry on common land, particularly on Dartmoor, and, secondly, to find a way by which those who have interests, particularly on Dartmoor, could go about their business amicably, without being faced with the difficulties which have arisen and which still exist.
Most hon. Members are aware of the many organisations which exist and which have laudable objects. However, they often come into direct conflict with one another. Covering Dartmoor, for example, there is the Dartmoor Commoners Association, comprised of commoners with rights on the Moor. Naturally they are interested in good animal husbandry, but without any statutory powers it is difficult for them to do the necessary planning or to take to task a commoner who misuses his rights to the detriment of the animals.
There is also the Dartmoor Preservation Society and the Dartmoor Livestock Protection Society. These bodies are comprised of people who are, in the main, not commoners; people who have always enjoyed the amenities of common land, such as ramblers and hikers. They tend to become annoyed if their interests are interfered with in any way by anyone else. Thus there arises a conflict between the various bodies which exist. If these amenity bodies see what they consider to be evidence of animals being ill treated—for example, animals being wintered on the Moor, as they have been in recent winters—further difficulties arise because of the conflict which ensues between these various organisations.
We all know that these problems cannot be solved overnight. Nevertheless, the Bill sets the stage for most of them to be solved. As the Minister and the Royal Commission pointed out, a lot is yet to be learned about common land. And as for Dartmoor, very few people understand exactly what are the rights of the commoner. I have been wondering why some of my constituents, the burgesses of Totnes, have been excluded from having rights, even of pasturage, on Dartmoor. Apart from the burgesses of Totnes and Barnstaple, every citizen of Devon has these rights, although we appreciate that if they all exercised them the Moor could not possibly hold that number of animals and great difficulty would arise.
This shows that we must establish the commons rights and, when that has been done, we can move to the next stage, when we can give to bodies equivalent to the Dartmoor Commoners Association some statutory powers to enable them to control their fellow members and other commoners so that at least they will be able to have proper control. That will result in everyone concerned being reasonably satisfied that people are using their commons rights in a proper way. We must aim at securing this state of affairs—at a position in which the difficulties I have described do not arise and people are satisfied that there is no question of cruelty to animals being involved. This would reduce the conflict between the various organisations whose members are using the Moor.
I welcome the power in the Bill to lay down the number of animals which the commoner will be allowed to run. This will obviously be of great help in solving the present difficulties. What criteria will be used in deciding this number? We are all agreed that a satisfactory solution of this rights problem—and the Minister said that the Bill seeks to establish this criteria—should be found, but if this is to apply right across the board, then presumably the commoners at present running a certain number of animals will find that in future their rights will be based on the number they are now running Is that the position?
The Royal Commission referred particularly to another question when it stated:
Taking common land as a whole we are left with the impression that it is the relic of an ancient system of land management which has caused it to lag well behind other land in agricultural production. To a large extent, the commoners have remained outside the scope of recent agricultural legislation, ineligible for either its benefits or penalties, and incapable, as commoners, of contributing to the industry's increased productivity.
There are many reasons for that state of things, and one has to ask whether there are not ways and means by which we can make common land more productive so that the commoners may enjoy a higher standard of living than they have done. We then come back to the basic problem of enclosure, because it is difficult to fertilise land if it is not fenced in any way, and when no one is felt to be responsible, with the result that no one person is prepared to spend

money so that someone else enjoys the benefit.
I believe that with this first step we can move towards a way in which the common land can be made more productive, the commoners can enjoy a higher standard of life, with obvious benefit to the nation as a whole. I also believe that if the matter is properly handled those who enjoy the amenities of common land will be able to enjoy a higher standard of amenity than they now have, although I know that not every amenity lover will agree with me here. I know that many amenity lovers would rather see Dartmoor a wilderness, with useless timber, rather than put under a sensible system of afforestation, with the rooting out of nasty scrub oak, and the like, so as to make something of the place. There is this conflict, but I hope that in time that conflict between the various people who have rights will be reduced.
This Bill is a very good first step. I believe that the Ministry is right in laying down a shorter period for registration than that suggested by the Royal Commission. I do not believe that registration need take as long as the Royal Commission thought. The fact that there will be no charge for claims for registration put in during the first 18 months should make certain that the main bulk of those who feel that they have commons rights will have been registered. The right hon. Gentleman will then be able to get some general idea of the position. The laggards will come along later, of course, but I do not think that there will be many of them compared with the main body of those who register in the first 18 months. As the Minister said, this is a modest but necessary Measure, and from it can flow many important things. I therefore wish him luck, and support his Bill.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Oakes: I agree with the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) that this Measure should be the first step in quite comprehensive commons legislation. Incidentally, I believe that the correct technical term for those who use the commons in Devon is "potboilers".
Some hon. Members opposite have expressed pleasure that my right hon.


Friend should have taken this Measure out of the pigeon-hole. Who put it into the pigeon-hole in 1957 and left it there until 1965? Had legislation been brought in in 1957–58 when the Jennings Report was before the House, the 12 years referred to in that Report as the registration period, taken with the three years proposed in the Bill, would have taken us to the same time, and we would have that greater protection of a length of time in which rights could be registered.
I agree with the hon. Member for Totnes about the importance of this Bill, because I sometimes wonder whether we all know just how much land we are talking about in terms of registration. An area of 1½million acres of common land has been mentioned. In England this is about equivalent in size to the whole of Somerset. The common land in Wales is about equal in area to the whole of the combined area of the Island of Anglesey and the county of Caernarvon. The combined total for England and Wales would be much greater than the total area of Lancashire. We are here dealing with a tremendous area of land, and my right hon. Friend, in bringing his first Bill to the House, should be warmly congratulated on tackling so vast a geographical area. The Bill shows the need there is for a Ministry of Land and Natural Resources.
It is rather astonishing that although common land has existed in this country for at least a thousand years—possibly since before Anglo-Saxon times—there has been no national register of it. We do not really know where it all is. We have no register of ownership, no register of rights over it—most important of all, we have no register of the public's rights over common land. In a crowded little island like this, where every acre should be of use to the public either agriculturally or recreationally, it is important that this register should be established. We are fortunate, indeed, that so much common land still exists despite centuries of neglect in establishing any system of registration.
There are one or two points in the Bill about which I am a little uncertain, and perhaps my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to allay my fears later in the debate. Clause

1(2) states that no land shall be deemed to be common land after a period of three years after the commencement of this Measure. In other words, unless it has been registered during that period, the land will be lost as common land. Presumably, such land would revert to the fee simple ownership without the owner having the encumbrance of rights of common or, where they exist, rights of public access. If the owner does not desire to register that land he is under no compulsion to do so and, in many instances, it might not be in his interests to do so. This is quite a problem, because he would lose the burden of commons rights without his even enclosing the land, and would do so by the operation of an Act of Parliament designed to set up machinery to preserve common land. That point should be carefully looked into.
It may be said that that aspect is already dealt with by Clause 4, under which any member of the public has the right to make an application to register land as common land. Will any member of the public, or will many members of the public, exercise such a right? I do not think so. For one thing, there is a good deal of uncertainty about now what land is common land and members of the public would be as vague and uncertain as local authorities and Ministries have been about what constitutes common land. Further, if a member of the public were to register the land and then sought to maintain that application on the register, he might involve himself in legal costs vis-à-vis the owner. He would be deterred from registering in the first place, and would certainly be deterred from maintaining that registration before the Commons Commissioners as an ordinary member of the public with no commons rights or ownership rights but merely doing his duty as a public-spirited citizen should.
My right hon. Friend may say that under another subsection of Clause 4 a registration authority itself is empowered to register common land even though no application is made by someone using the common, or the owner of the common. Here are two difficulties which were touched upon by the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling). The county council is the registration area, but in some counties, particularly


the larger ones, there will be difficulties about actually knowing where common land exists. We are dealing with a vast amount of land. My views on that are somewhat reinforced by some remarks in an excellent and most readable book by Stamp and Hoskins, two well respected members of the Commission. Hoskins will be known to the hon. Member for Totnes as possibly our greatest local historian and Stamp is one of our greatest geographers.
A paragraph appears on page 100 of that book which says:
The published evidence of the Crown Estate Commissioners and the Service Departments is very informative in this regard. In particular, the Crown Estate Commissioners not only own but have declared open to public access large areas of common land in Wales which the local authorities, in their evidence, did not know existed.
Here is a problem that county councils as registration authorities dealing with the problems of village greens and town greens have to seek out the common land. To do so they will have to employ staff and to incur expense for what apparently will bring little or no return to them.
The second problem which may militate against county councils' registration of common land is that unless an application comes from outside there is again the question of cost. They themselves would have to maintain their application on the register before the Commissioners and incur expense in doing so. Although county councils and county borough councils should be the registration authorities, I wonder if rural district councils, urban district councils and possibly parish councils should not have a duty to inform county councils of commons in their areas. They have much more intimate knowledge than resides in the county hall which deals with the whole county.
Another problem which was touched on by my right hon. Friend in opening the debate was about Clause 8 and the difficulty in regard to common land which is unclaimed. The Clause directs what the Commissioners shall do regarding ownership of village and town greens. He rightly said that the Commons Commissioners should direct that such land should be vested in the local authority. In relation to commons generally in an

area, I wonder if it would be advisable for my right hon. Friend to vest in a local authority unclaimed land, land without an apparent owner. Just as nature abhors a vacuum, we abhor a situation in which land exists without an owner. Such land gets neglected and becomes derelict. No one will have anything to do with it because no one owns it.
If local authorities were vested with ownership of unclaimed land a precedent could be found for that. I think the ancient borough of Preston owns a lot of common land which has now become parkland, and it has owned that land for centuries. I wonder whether registration authorities might themselves have some added impetus given them to seek out and register common land if common land which was not claimed accrued to them as responsible public authorities. This is a matter which my right hon. Friend should consider because there is an hiatus in Clause 8, a deliberate one I know, but since we have set up the machinery the Commissioners should be told fairly early what to do about unclaimed land. There will be a great deal of unclaimed common land.
I welcome the Bill because future legislation is made possible. May that legislation soon be brought before the House. It is no use having this machinery to register common land if there is nothing quickly done thereafter. That would be an academic exercise of little use to the country, to common land or the public. Particularly there is the question of public access. People think that all common land is public land, but that is a quite wrong assumption. Much common land is in fact public land and members of the public do not know of their rights to wander over it in the heather and the bracken. For the crowded urban constituencies, such as the one I represent which is surrounded by most beautiful moorland, it is important that this land exists, this reservoir of fresh air for exercise and unspoiled beauty which should be made available to large masses of people who at present do not know their rights in common land. I urge my right hon. Friend as soon as practicable to bring in further legislation to make this registration machinery of some use


to the common land and the people of this country.

5.56 p.m.

Mr. Jasper More: I also welcome the introduction of this Bill. I apologise to the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) that I was not able to be in the Chamber earlier. I was very glad to hear the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes) refer to the question of the rights and duties of members of the public and also to the position of local authorities in this matter. Both these I think are of importance.
The important thing which needs to be said about this Bill is that it is leading us, after many centuries of land legislation, to what might be called the final stage in the process of enclosure. Enclosure has been one of those things which for the last 150 years authors of the Liberal and Socialist persuasions have been inveighing against as a process which has done the most harm and injury to members of the public in this country. I think those of us who know the realities of agricultural life realise that it was only as a result of the process of enclosure in this country that there has been agricultural progress and progress of every kind in the countryside. If we were to revert to the situation which applied before enclosure started there would be a very sorry picture in the countryside.
The reason why the Commission which reported in 1958 was set up and produced the Report which is the basis of this Bill, was the very unsatisfactory situation which exists in the countryside because of the long-drawn-out process of enclosure which had never been completed. Starting from that basis, I want to say a word on what—without meaning to be unkind—I think can be fairly described as some of the rather airy and fairy imaginative ideas one hears put forward both in this House and elsewhere about the public and their rights and what the public need in the countryside.
Although it may be true that there are misconceptions of law about this subject, it is very sad that it is probably true that there are even graver misconceptions of fact. Many people, both in the House and outside, visualise the 50 million inhabitants of this country as being for the most part penned up in cities and yearn-

ing for the great open spaces that exist in the countryside, their only wish being to be able to sally forth on their free days and weekends and wander all over these areas under, to use that picturesque phrase that is sometimes employed to describe this operation, free range.
I am sorry to tell the House that this is a total misconception of the psychological state of the vast majority of the inhabitants of this country. People in this country, except in a microscopic proportion, have not the slightest wish to range over the vast open spaces that still remain in our countryside. This was brought home vividly to me when I went with a Parliamentary party composed of hon. Members from both sides of the House to visit a large area of land within 50 miles of London which forty years ago was handed over to the National Trust by a generous donor for the precise purpose of providing the 8 million inhabitants of London with 4,000 acres of land over which they could do precisely this. We were taken over this area by the custodian appointed by the National Trust. He told us of the experience of the Trust, which is worth having on the record.
This happens only during the warmer months. The story really starts on a Saturday morning, because nothing happens, practically speaking, during the previous five days. On a Saturday morning cars begin to arrive along the roads which intersect the area. They draw up upon the roadside. The doors open. Out get father, mother, three little chairs, a table, a radio, those cooking things which I think are generally known under the name of "the fry-up" and perhaps one or two children. A little semicircle is made round the car. The semicircle never extends more than 10 yards beyond the car. There the whole day is spent frying up, listening to the radio, talking, and generally enjoying the sunshine. One is bound to say: if that is what people like, why not? The fact is that all round the area grow up rushes, brambles and bracken to such an extent that it would not be possible, even if anybody wanted to do so, to free range through it. The National Trust has to employ staff to cut these things to keep the land in any sort of order at all.
It is nonsense to talk about the need to have these thousands of acres for


people to roam about on, sad though I am to say this, because I think I am one of the microscopic few who really like free ranging, or I used to when I was younger We do not need that sort of thing in this country. What people like are lay-bys where they can put their cars, roads to drive them on, and facilities for doing the things that I have described. What needs to be provided are the roads, the lay-bys, and by the lay-bys extremely large litter bins, because the final thing told to us by the National Trust custodian who took us round was the cost of collecting all the things which are left behind on the Sunday evening. This operation takes two days, I should explain. It happens on Saturday and on Sunday, if it is fine weather. The cost of collecting everything that is left behind in the form of tins, paper, and so on, is greater than the amount of money which is put into the collecting boxes which the National Trust has all round this area for people to subscribe to it.
Many people talk about the importance of these areas for the public. I tell the House that the things which are important are the roads, the lay-bys, the litter bins, and, I suppose, the collecting boxes.
Another thing which is important is footpaths. However, it is easy to over-emphasise the importance of footpaths. Before the war I lived in Essex. At a time when money was very short for public purposes of every kind, the county council of Essex astonished us all—it is a fairly large county—by investing in an incredible number of signposts pointing to footpaths. I mention this matter because it has recently been drawn attention to in a letter published in a paper as a matter of some pride. The letter was written by somebody living in Essex. The county council erected an innumerable number of signposts with little yellow signs stuck out, saying "Footpath". This meant that there was a public right of way. I was surprised by the terms of the letter. The conditions were difficult, even in the 'thirties. After one had hobbled across the first ploughed field—every field in Essex is ploughed, so one climbs over this knobbled area of soil—and after the first fence one came to an impenetrable hedge full of brambles. One had to give that up and go on to the bit which was not a footpath at all.

Finally, one gave it up and decided that the lane was best, after all. This was a considerable waste of public money.
In these days members of the public as a whole do not want to use these footpaths. They were intended for local people in the days when there was no other transport. The number of footpaths that people want to use nowadays is exceedingly limited. So many wild claims are made about the need for public recreation, walking, and so on. Although I am all in favour of facilities being provided, I appeal for a little realism.
In my own county of Shropshire we have one of the greatest and finest commons in the country known as the Long Mynd. Part of it is common land. It is not in point of fact open to the public, but there is nothing to stop the public free-ranging along it. It is rather dangerous to do free-ranging across the Long Mynd, as I have discovered more than once, to my cost. Sometimes on an inviting bit of what looks like green pasture—my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South will know this—one suddenly treads on it and sinks in up to one's thighs. On the whole, free-ranging is definitely to be discouraged in areas of that kind. Therefore, one needs to be rather crudely realistic. I am glad to say, in spite of what hon. Members have been saying about the public, that that is what the Bill is trying to be.
We must all sympathise with the great dislike of my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock (Sir H. Studholme) for motor cars and litter louts. However, we must face the fact that this is the world in which we have to live and that on the whole it is one of those situations that we have to meet and perhaps make it as profitable as we can by meeting the desires that people have and possibly inviting them to subscribe for what, though we may not enjoy it, they enjoy.
The hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) has expressed in the House his regret that in the County of Montgomery the 109,000 acres of common land which once existed are now reduced to 8,000. The hon. Gentleman has cited this as a great deprivation of the public. We need to be realistic about this sort of figure and ask ourselves how many people 8,000 acres can accommodate. It is a surprising number of people. Eight thousand


acres could accommodate the whole population of this country if they went for a weekend on common land, if they wished to do so as any one time.
As I have said, in my constituency there is one of the largest and finest pieces of common land in Britain. We have shown a very good example to the country, because we have tackled the question of ownership. The ownership of this area recently came into the market. The National Trust very rightly proposed that it should be bought and vested in the Trust. The Trust is not blessed with unlimited funds, and, rightly, it does not on every occasion appeal to the Government to provide it with funds. It launched a local appeal. It is a matter of some local pride that in a very short time£16,000 was subscribed, almost entirely from local sources by local benefactors, to make this possible. I understand that the ownership of this very large area will shortly be vested in the National Trust. I am sure that it is a good thing because it puts the ownership in a responsible body which can utilise this area for the benefit of the various interests concerned.
What are those interests? Unfortunately, I was not able to hear the Minister introduce the Bill or to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South. I am slightly concerned to read what might be called the administrative and judicial provisions of this Bill as they are set out in Clause 16. Cases of doubt are to be referred to the Commons Commissioners, who are apparently to sit, if required, with a panel of assessors. I should like the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to tell us what is contemplated in connection with these assessors. First, will he tell us what they are to assess? In the Bill they are described as people required to deal with
cases calling for special knowledge.
Will the Joint Parliamentary Secretary tell us what special knowledge is visualised? Is it special knowledge of the common in question? If so, is it desirable that what are really judicial decisions should be influenced by people with local knowledge of ownerships or rights or claims?
I raise this question because, having had some experience of sitting on tribunals dealing with agricultural matters, I have the conviction that where there are cases of dispute or conflicting interests, it is absolutely right, as the Bill presumably contemplates, that the chairman should be somebody who is legally qualified; but if he is to be assisted by other persons, surely by far the best principle is that he should be assisted by persons who represent the various conflicting interests so that there shall be voices representing all those interests.
What are those conflicting interests? First—and not very much has been said about them while I have been present—there are the interests of ownership. They may not be very valuable so far as common rights are concerned. They can, however, entail quite considerable liabilities. But whether they are valuable or not, it is surely desirable that there should be on these tribunals—if they are to be tribunals—somebody who looks at the matter from the point of view of the rights and liabilities of the landowner.
Secondly—and obviously in all cases this is important—there are the rights of the commoners. This is much more difficult. It is very difficult to find somebody who represents the rights of commers without being too much a spokesman for local interests. At the same time, it is most important to ensure that in any proceedings which are referred to the Commons Commissioners the interests of those who claim to have common rights should be adequately represented in any tribunal which has to adjudicate upon them.
If it is not possible to draw from the locality someone who can be regarded as being free from prejudice, there ought surely to be some provision whereby someone from an association representing commoners as a whole, or some body of that kind, if it exists, should be on the Lord Chancellor's panel to participate in adjudication of this kind.
Thirdly—a point that has been stressed in this debate—there are the members of the public. In fact, members of the public very often have no rights at all, as hon. Members have recognised. Common rights and common land may be purely matters for the owners and the


commoners. Nevertheless, as the public may be interested, and in view of the fact that the public, whether interested or not, do in general in modern times claim to have an interest in all these areas, it is surely right that there should be on these tribunals somebody whose duty is to safeguard the interests of the public. That means a tribunal of four people. I suggest that if these matters are to be adequately and fairly adjudicated upon, there is a need for a tribunal of that kind.
The duty of administering this Bill in the countryside is put on the county councils. I do not know to what extent this will be a major incubus on the county councils, but in view of all the knowledge that we have about the burdens which are increasingly put on the ratepayers, the Minister ought to tell the House whether, and to what extent, if this does impose additional burdens and expenses on county councils—I speak as a county councillor—the Government will give such assistance out of the taxes. After all, this is not really a matter which should reasonably be put on local ratepayers and it is only right that this question should be faced before the Bill becomes law.
The hon. Member for Pontypool made some pertinent comments on the complaints of his constituents about sheep trespass. A big improvement could be brought about if there were a great deal more fencing round the common lands. Round the large area in my constituency to which I have referred, we have reinforced the fencing by installing road grids wherever a public road enters the common land. This has been a considerable expense to the public authorities but it has been of enormous advantage. If this could be done all over the country and if trespass of this kind could be avoided, much better relations could be achieved between the local inhabitants and the commoners whose sheep are blamed for these offences.
I therefore welcome the Bill as being a further and, I hope, final stage in the process of enclosure which has been so consistently opposed by the Liberal and Labour Parties over the last 150 years. I thank the Minister for introducing the Bill and I wish it well.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. Bert Hazell: I, too, cordially extend a welcome to this Bill. It is a Measure of limited nature, but, as we have already been told by my right hon. Friend, it will be followed in due course by other legislation. Nevertheless, the fact that this Bill makes the first move in providing for the registration of common land is very welcome not only in the towns and urban areas but in the villages and purely rural districts.
Leaving aside the issue of land that comes under the control of the municipal authorities or within the boundaries of municipalities, it would appear that common land falls into two categories—the very high land to which the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) and my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) referred, and the common lands in the arable districts. The hon. Member for Westmorland referred to the high stocking on many of the high common lands and he also drew attention to the lack of fencing which caused considerable loss amongst the animals grazing on this land.
The difficulties encountered in this respect can be appreciated. The cost of fencing such land would be colossal for whatever public body ultimately had to bear the responsibility. Reference has been made to the fact that some of the high land is subject to overstocking, but if that land was better cared for and if better drainage was undertaken it would be quite capable of carrying a much higher ratio of stock than it carries at present. This high land, therefore, can be of tremendous importance to agriculturists in the areas concerned.
I want to turn my attention to the lower areas, the village greens and commons. During the war I served as a member of two agricultural executive committees. Under Defence Regulations, brought about because of the urgency of the time, authority was given to plough up many of the commons and to grow food for human consumption. A great deal of money was spent on the commons to bring about the standard of cultivation which was necessary to ensure a reasonable crop. These common lands added considerably to food production, and many of them were being cleaned up for the first time. In many instances there


was a good deal of criticism that common land should be ploughed up and put under cultivation under Defence Regulations, but without doubt the net result was of considerable benefit to the country.
When after the war it became necessary to restore the land to its original state—to use the jargon bound up in the Defence Regulations—people looked forward to many of these commons playing a useful part in the economy of a village or district. Unfortunately, in the course of time the commons and village greens deteriorated. This is obvious in whatever part of rural Britain one travels. The causes are manifold. In some instances the commons were let to farmers to graze cows, but with the demand for higher hygiene among cowherds and the fact that many of these commons are traversed by public highways, many smallholders and farmers withdrew their cows from the commons. The risk of disease as well as accident was too great. The consequences have been that many of the commons and greens have been grown over and are now eyesores.
As has been said already in the debate, a number of them have become dumping grounds for bits of old cars, bedsteads, unwanted furniture, and everything else that one can imagine. No longer can these commons and greens be regarded as one of the treasures of a rural village. They have become a blot on the landscape. I am mindful that in my constituency one of the commons is a fire risk every summer. This is due perhaps to picnickers not being too careful. Sometimes it is due to the sun igniting the grass through a glass bottle. The fact remains that last summer there were several fires on this common which were a nuisance to everybody in the village and surrounding districts and called for a great deal of service from the local fire brigade.
I should like to see these areas cleaned up and I hope that the registration of commons and greens will be the first stage in that direction. I am aware that some of the original purposes of some of the commons have now disappeared. When I became a Parliamentary candidate I was informed of a common where cottagers were entitled to keep donkeys and geese. I went across that common a few days ago. I did not see a donkey—that method

of transport disappeared some time ago—and I did not notice any geese being kept on the common. Consequently the common is just one mass of gorse and rush. I am sure that cultivation of many of these commons could be undertaken. This would improve the countryside and would add to food production. Income from the commons, where it now exists, could be used for charitable purposes. This is the responsibility of some of those who are custodians of the commons.
Some commons are used as village sports grounds. One would not wish to see the rights of villagers in this respect taken away. I am sure that it is not the intention in this Bill or in subsequent Measures to do that. I cannot ignore the fact that I know of village commons which played their part during the war in food production and which were reseeded after the war. Now in the centre of the village green there is just a small patch where the village football team or cricket team play their games in season, but in the vast area around that patch the land has reverted to what it was before ploughing took place under Defence Regulations.
Whoever ultimately assumes responsibility for these commons will be faced in many instances with a considerable financial burden, because I cannot see many of the village commons being enclosed even if it were desirable to do that. The number of roads around and across them would make it economically impracticable. It might, therefore, be necessary for the parish council to assume responsibility to precept the rates to keep the places clean and tidy. Whatever the future of these village commons and greens, I am certain that by registration, in the first instance, establishing ownership, followed by legislation, a substantial improvement could be brought about which would do much to enhance the beauty of our villages and at the same time make a contribution to food production.

6.29 p.m.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell) in welcoming the Bill. The Bill is the first positive reason that I have been able to find for the establishment of the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources, for the reason that a new Ministry deserves a stint of


Parliamentary time and one of the troubles of the last 10 years or so has been that such a great volume of legislation dealing with agriculture has been needed that we know that many worthwhile Bills have had to wait in the queue. The fact that the Minister has taken over some of the pigeonholes, with some time, has provided a very welcome occasion.
The 1½ million acres of common land are our last resource of uncommitted land. I wonder how they compare with the total area of built-up land. They trust represent the equivalent of a very large proportion of the total built-up area in this country. Therefore, there is a great potential there. Geographically, the largest areas of common land are in the North-West, but the most numerous commons are, probably, in the crowded South-East. In both parts of the country there is great need to realise and reconcile the twin objectives of the Royal Commission, to provide wider facilities for public access and enjoyment and to increase the agricultural productivity of common land. I have no doubt whatever that better management could produce significant advances in both these objectives without causing any marked conflict. Each common presents a problem peculiar to itself in character, in present condition, in potential, and in the demands made upon it by the public. I, therefore, welcome very much that there is currently in progress the survey by the Nuffield Foundation and Cambridge University.
In Norfolk, as the hon. Member for Norfolk, North will, no doubt, agree, we have not a very large area of common land. It is less than 1 per cent. of our total area, just over 8,000 acres. But the sad fact is that of those 8,386 acres no fewer than 4,176 were classified in the evidence given to the Royal Commission as being scrub, gorse and derelict. With shining exceptions, notably the areas of special natural and scientific interest, our common lands, on the whole, contrast unfavourably with the well farmed surrounding land.
The difficulty is lack of authority, lack of effective interest, lack of agreement, and, hence, lack of plans and resources. We have all had experience of this. Clearly, most commons are failing to reach their potential. It is difficult to get

action even in such a matter as pest control. This has not been mentioned so far. We have elaborate schemes to eradicate pests such as the rabbit, and it is not an uncommon experience—this is certainly true in the area in which I live—to find that surrounding farmland is cleared but there remains a pocket of resistance usually in the form of some common. I can remember inquiring of the Ministry of Agriculture some years ago what chance there was of the Minister authorising or taking steps to clear up a very small area of common near my own farm. I discovered that the legal difficulties confronting the Minister in any authorisation or action which he could safely undertake were so formidable that it was hardly worth trying to do anything. On the other hand, on a later occasion when I met privately and informally an eminent Whitehall legal adviser and we talked about this problem, he said to me, "This is very true, but, if someone goes in and cleans up the area at this own expense, who is to complain?" There is lack of authority either way.
One sees this even in trying to complete what seem to me to be fairly sensible arrangements under existing legislation for the regulation of commons. I was appalled by the legal complexity of trying to have a scheme authorised for a common in my own constituency where the local sports clubs wished to be able to fence off a few acres of land so as to have a reasonable cricket and football pitch. This was very difficult because there were rights of going over the whole area. I am very grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for the great personal interest he has taken in this small but extremely difficult and complex legal problem. The hon. Gentleman has produced a solution, but a solution at a cost in man-hours and legal advice which is really quite frightening to contemplate. I hope that the registration which is to follow under the Bill will avoid a great deal of that quite unnecessary and costly work and that the Bill will start the process of rationalisation and reorganisation.
I agree that it is most desirable to shorten the period for registration, but the Minister has departed in one respect from the recommendations of the Royal Commission, and here, I think, the consequences may be undesirable. I refer to


stinting. The Royal Commission recommended that there should be registration not of rights of common but of claims to rights of common. This small departure is very significant. Clause 4 provides for the registration of rights of common, but in paragraph 265 of its Report the Royal Commission clearly recommended the registration of claims by persons with interests in land either as owners or as commoners.
This distinction will prove of great practical importance. I say this particularly having heard so many speeches today refer to the problems of stinting. Under Clause 14, a claimant or person registering common rights has to quantify his claim and make it for the right to graze so many animals, a definite number. The trouble at the moment is that most of the grazing commons are not so quantified. Table 2 in the Report shows that common land which is grazing and stinted, that is, with the numbers of animals defined, makes up 33 per cent. of the total area of common land. The grazing which is not stinted but is grazing at large covers 46 per cent.
In certain areas where grazing is very important, not in my constituency but in the upland areas, very little, I am informed, is at present so quantified. That is likely because much of the grazing rights must stem from the old manorial right of "levant and couchant", and that is really a vague right to depasture cattle from some dominant tenement, usually a neighbouring farm. So we have no certainty as to numbers. Therefore, at present many commoners are either grazing far more animals than they are entitled to at strict law or possibly far fewer animals for a variety of reasons which agriculturally are probably very sound.
People may not use their grazing rights because the condition of the common at present makes it not worth grazing. That was particularly so when the process of attestation came into agriculture. By law anyone seeking to have an attested herd was required not to allow his cattle to mix with any non-attested cattle. Therefore, one obviously could not use common rights. That situation has changed because the whole country has become attested, but that was a clear reason why grazing rights would simply not be

exercised. Similarly, if the common is in a very bad condition or if the fencing is non-existent, it simply is not worth while at present availing oneself of one's right because the keep is bad, there is danger from animals straying, and the cost in herdsmen's time makes for inefficiency. But all these difficulties and disadvantages would be removed at a later stage if and when commons are improved.
The difficulty at the moment is that if the claim for registration is regarded as a right unlesss it is objected to, the effect will be that at the end of the period of registration a whole lot of rights will emerge giving rise to a total number of claims far in excess of the carrying capacity of any common, be it large or small. Therefore, the practical point I put to the Minister is whether it is not far better that the claims should not be quantified but that the commoner should register a claim to graze his animals without having to specify the actual number. As to the advantage of this, the essence of registration is to find out the number of people who are interested in the grazing. It will be extremely difficult to decide the actual capacity, and hence the division of numbers of stock that may graze, until a scheme of management has been put through as a result of whatever legislation follows this first stage of dealing with commons.
The only way the numbers of grazing animals can be reconciled is not by a Commons Commissioner sitting more or less as a court of law, but, in a much more practical way, by the management authority or committee later on, because it can get all those who have grazing interests together to discuss their claims and reconcile their differences. Otherwise, there is a grave danger that under the Bill in its present form we shall be registering as legal rights some "rights" which are. in fact, non-existent, because if people put forward very large claims—I think that once people know about the requirement to register they will obviously pitch their claims as high as they can—the registers will be swollen with claims, and as a result a great deal of argument and conflict will have to be heard, but that would be avoided if the registration was purely, as the Royal Commission recommended, that of a claim of right and not of a right itself.
The Royal Commission surveyed the problem generally and did not go into great detail about the possible methods of future management. Here I revert to the advantages of the survey carried out by the Nuffield Foundation and Cambridge University. As a result of studying in detail some 361 commons, the survey has, I think, evaluated all the different circumstances and categories into which commons will fall. It has identified the particular needs. When the report is published, which I understand is likely at the end of the year, I think it will point the way to the practical solution of some of the difficulties.
I should like to hear a Government statement about future policy for phase two, but. I think it will be wise to await the findings of the Nuffield survey. As far as I am aware, no survey of all the commons is at present in hand, though this may be the Minister's later intention. I think that this is important, because although it is not too difficult to devise a theoretical solution to the problem of common land in general, in practice the difficulties are immense and vary from common to common. There is the question whether it is desirable to have management near at hand or further away. The former means that management and interest will be closer together. On the other hand, it will be difficult to take a wider view, and, of course, it would mean a multiplicity of authorities. Likewise, there is the question of finance. The finance which is available may greatly govern the use to which commons can be put. That, again, will be a difficult balance of judgment between the share of any finance that should fall on the commoners who may only be exercising their own rights, arid the desirability but difficulty of obtaining some contribution from members of the general public who use the commons.
All these matters lie in the future. I welcome the Bill, but I shall welcome even more a clear statement of Ministerial policy for phase two.

6.49 p.m.

Mr. James Allason: I, too, welcome the Bill, but for reasons slightly different from some of those put forward by hon. Friends of mine who have been speaking generally

about places rather far away from London. Close around London, within a radius of 50 miles, there is a very substantial amount of common land, no less than 70,000 acres.
Here the situation is rather different from that referred to by, for example, my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling). The commoners may not be so numerous. I can think of a case where there are only about four commoners concerned. We tried to discover their whereabouts, and it was extremely difficult to locate them—just a few commoners. I can appreciate that when there are many owners the situation must be very much worse but when there are few it becomes all the more important that they should be consulted when there is to be any change of use of common land by the owner.
I therefore very much welcome the Bill in that it enforces the registration of ownership and of the rights of common. It will come as a great shock to the British public to read Clause 1 and discover that there is private ownership of common land. This is utterly alien to all the ideas of those who think that common land is something on which they have the right to walk at all times of the year.
But, of course, this private ownership brings with it, as we have heard, not only liabilities but privileges such as sporting rights and the right to extract minerals and perhaps gravel. All these matters must be considered in the second stage. What alarms me slightly about the second stage, which has been partially considered in the debate, is the question of what is to happen where it is intended that there shall be unrestricted access to the common land. We have heard from hon. Members on both sides of the House the difficulties that unrestricted access will cause when it comes to games and pastimes. It is impossible to allow them to continue if the public has unrestricted right of access over the whole of the land in question, yet it may well be in the interests of the common land and, indeed, of the public itself that sport should take place there.
I know of a case of a common infested with gorse and bracken where there is a proposal to start a public golf course. This would obviously open up the common land and vastly improve it, but at


the moment it cannot be done because we cannot ensure that all the commoners would agree to it and, in any case, there is the possibility of unrestricted rights being granted later to the public to move over the land.
We have also heard today of the difficulties experienced by agriculture, which clearly requires to enforce limited access to the public. It is quite impossible to saddle agriculture with unrestricted access over the whole area and the same applies to forestry.
Dealing with the rights of commons, Clause 21 says that "common land" means
…rights of common (as defined in this Act)…
But later one finds the wording,
…'rights of common' inculdes cattle-gates or beastgates…
and various other things. It appears to me that this is a hopelessly unsatisfactory definition considering that the Bill promises a definition. It is certainly not the sort of definition of the rights of commoners that is understood in various other Acts. I hope that this definition will be substantially improved.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) spoke of the situation where claims to rights of common would be automatic once registered or where, as suggested in the Royal Commission's Report, they would be subject to negotiation. It is difficult to determine from the Bill whether it is intended that the registration authority shall negotiate or whether it will merely write down the names of claimants and, if there is dispute, attempt to negotiate. The Report clearly indicated in paragraphs 260 and 261 that there should be quite a lot of discussion on the ground of precisely what the claim is and that the authority should try to settle local disputes. That would seem to be a wise method of procedure.
I would be grateful—since it is not clear to me—if the Joint Parliamentary Secretary could explain whether that system will be adopted or not. If it is, it will certainly reinforce the claims of the non-county boroughs to become, if necessary, registration authorities. If the non-county boroughs do become registration

authorities it means that local disputes will be settled by people on the spot with local knowledge. The non-county boroughs are in a very strong position in these circumstances. I hope, therefore, that what may have been said in another place will not be the end of the claims of non-county boroughs to be considered as registration authorities.
As I have said I welcome the Bill strongly. If my words have appeared to oppose it, it is only in detail. I warmly support the principle of the Bill.

6.57 p.m.

Mr. Peter Mills: I am glad of an opportunity to speak in the debate because I welcome the Bill, although I understand that it is only a start and that, of course, a lot more remains to be done. Further legislation will be needed. Nevertheless, the Bill is a foundation and a start and I welcome it.
This is another case, as has already been said of my party having conceived a Measure and the present Government acting as midwife. We have seen this on many occasions in this Parliament, certainly where agriculture and rural problems are concerned. We have done the conceiving and the Government have acted as midwife. I hope that the country as a whole notes this. It will be interesting to see when the Government do some fathering themselves, certainly in agriculture. It will be interesting to see what they produce.
In my constituency we have very large tracts of common and moor and very beautiful scenery. I think of Chagford and around Okehampton and other places with lovely names like Sourton and Bridestowe. It is all wonderful scenery and is a great attraction to the public and tourists.
This excellent Bill will be of great value not only now but in future. Its value will become more and more apparent in future. In the years that lie ahead we shall see it as the foundation of many things concerning our moors and commons. These commons and moors are a great heritage. They have been passed on to us. People have fought for them to preserve them and I believe that we should do the same. I believe that, if we can pass them on in a better state than


we receive them, that is the right course for us.
I only hope that the young people of today will value them as much as people have done in the past and will seek to preserve them, just as we are seeking to preserve them. I want passionately to preserve our commons and moors. However, I believe that, in certain parts we have, as it were, to give in. We may have to give up certain of these rights in the interests of reservoirs and, indeed, of forestry. The very mention of this in certain parts of my constituency makes people get hot under the collar. A lot of nonsense is talked about it. It is right to look at the problem as a whole to see what is best in the national interest, and I repeat that I think that we shall have to give up some rights in the interests of reservoirs and forestry, although admittedly these must be limited and controlled.
Grazing rights are very important. I fully understand why commoners should be registered and boundaries clearly defined, but grazing rights are vital to small farmers, particularly in the South-West. I am thinking of small farmers on the edges of moors whose farms are composed mostly of stock, of sheep and cattle. It is vital that they should have and continue to have these rights on the moors. These small farms are sometimes hardly viable as it is and they would certainly not be if they lost their grazing rights.
These small farmers should be given priority over other commoners. This may cause annoyance in some quarters, but if the moors are overstocked, the small farmers who live on the edge of the moors will suffer. They should, therefore, be given priority. Their main source of income is from the grazing of commons and moors. The ground around the homesteads is often only enough to provide a little winter keep and they depend on their grazing rights.
Others with rights on the moors and commons may be townsfolk. I know of drapers and garage people who have such rights. Who is to have preference if they make a claim? In a case like that, it is most important that the small moorland farmers should have priority and I hope that the Minister will be able to give me some reassurance on this matter. I do not want the small moorland farmer to

be squeezed out because others have claimed their rights on the moors.
The village green, in which I am very interested, is an important part of village life. I look back to happy times on the village green. One recalls one's early days when one was courting, and long may the village greens be preserved! [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but these things are part of the heritage which has been handed down to us and they should be continued. Would it be possible to extend these commons rights in certain areas in the planning of the future? It is most important for a village or any other community to have a focus point and it is to be found in the village green where a man can court, can play his football, his cricket, or take a walk. Will it be possible for the village greens to be extended and preserved? They are a great asset to the community.
Clause 14 deals with the number of animals to be allowed to each person. I presume that that means that each person with these rights will be allowed a certain number of cattle, sheep and ponies. There will be a problem of identification. It is fairly easy to identify cattle by ear tags, but it is not so easy to identify sheep and ponies. How does the Minister propose to deal with this problem? Is there to be any registration of marks? Will there be checks on the number of stock which each commoner has and will that number be checked with the subsidy claims, which will be most interesting?
There is also the problem of fencing and cattle grids. Anyone who has lived near the moors, particularly in the South-West, knows of the slaughter of ponies which goes on there. It is my personal opinion that the time has come to fence roads through the moors, particularly main roads. This is not a great problem. If it were known that there were certain parts of the road where cattle and ponies were liable to be crossing, drivers could beware and take precautions accordingly. At the moment, the ponies cross hither and thither and are a source of great danger to motorists, and many ponies are slaughtered in the process. Perhaps the Minister could have a talk with the Minister of Transport on this subject. Perhaps the motorist ought to pay towards the cost, for although he should pay a


large proportion, the commoner should not be the only one to pay.
Lastly, there is the problem of animal husbandry on the moors. I do not believe that we are fully utilising our moors. Much can be done to increase their productivity and in the years ahead, as more food production is needed, we may have to turn more and more to the moors. The Bill is a step in the right direction and, because I want to see greatly increased productivity from the moors, I welcome the Bill.

7.8 p.m.

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: I apologise at once to the Minister for the fact that I was not here to listen to what he had to say when he moved the Second Reading. I was glad to see the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food sitting for a short time on the Front Bench with the Minister, and for a moment I thought that I was to be issued with a little poetic justice. The reason that I was not listening to the Minister was that I was in my constituency paying attention to what the Joint Parliamentary Secretary had to say to my constituents, and I hope that in those circumstances the Minister will acquit me of any possible discourtesy to him. I also hope that anything I have to say will not already have been covered by what the right hon. Gentleman said.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazen) is no longer in his place. He described in his constituency and in his experience the type of thing which has led me to take an interest in commons for a number of years. I happen to live not very far from a common which is described in the Report of the Royal Commission as a "gated" common. In the many years that I have know it there have been some gates only at one end, although I have never seen them closed. There were some gates on some minor roads which were occasionally closed by children who no doubt wanted a little recompense for their trouble in then having to open them. However, I find it difficult to understand what information was given to the Royal Commission which led it to describe this as a "gated" common.
However, in precisely the same way as the hon. Member for Norfolk, North

described as having happened in his area, this common was taken over for agricultural purposes during the war and carried a very large number of cattle and grew extremely good grass. Unfortunately, the general impression seemed to have got round that this is some way conflicted with the rights of the public, and letters appeared in the local newspapers saying that the public were not being allowed to walk and to do all the things that they were able to do before. I see that the hon. Member for Norfolk, North has returned to his place. I am delighted that he is here to see that I am supporting the proposition which he put forward about agricultural improvements on commons.
This common not only had the general public complaining about fences being put up and getting in their way. Local councils unanimously passed resolutions saying that this was a grave interference with everybody's rights. I well remember a letter from a local reverend gentleman who complained bitterly that his beautiful view of the gorse had been completely destroyed and that all he now looked at was grass and cattle. The result was that, together with the tendencies arising from increasing attestation, and so on, the cattle were removed from the common and there was not the same number of head coming out. In view of all these complaints, the commoners and the executive committee gave up the struggle. The fences have now been pulled down. A few horses are to be seen walking between dense patches of gorse and scrub land. This common of 296 acres is producing virtually nothing. If the Bill is a first step in dealing with that type of situation, I very much support everything that the Minister proposes to do.
I feel a little dubious about the claim concerning the natural beauties which the public can enjoy in these places. I believe that the beauties which are to be found in many of them have, to a great extent, been produced by human hands. Once the human interest is taken away and there is no incentive to put on cattle or fertilisers and to ensure that proper grass is grown, the beauty very much diminishes. I do not think that there is very much beauty in a lot of gorse and broken fences.
If the public want beauty, it is as well that they should appreciate that


the quite false idea in their minds that they should be allowed to walk anywhere must be restrained a little. Then we should be able to make progress in the direction which I hope the Minister has in mind. Paragraph 322 of the Report says that it is not much good having access to common land if the access is impracticable because people cannot walk though it or over it. I note that in paragraph 329 the Report goes on to say that it is hoped that local authorities or others will arrange for fences to be erected so that playing fields can be put on commons. Surely if it is right to put up a fence round a playing field, it is not wrong to erect one to ensure that proper agricultural operations are carried out.
I should like the Minister to give me a little assistance about what he has in mind now that the Bill is on the way to the Statute Book. Had his colleague the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture still been here he might have been able to enlighten him about a few doubts which I hope some of my constituents may have passed on to him today about the Government's agricultural policies. It would do no harm for the Minister to let us know what he has in mind in putting the Bill en the Statute Book.
Recommendation 29 on page 131 of the summary of recommendations in the Report suggests that as soon as the registers are open it should be possible for anyone who registers a private interest to start promoting a common improvement scheme. I have looked at the Bill with a certain amount of care, and if there is a provision which enables anything of that sort to take place it has escaped me. I feel that that is a grave omission, because if commons are to be registered it would do no harm for us to start at once with improvement schemes and to encourage commoners and those managing commons to set about putting them into better condition.
There is in the Report a very interesting history of commons and common land provided by Sir Ivor Jennings. I should like to quote one sentence because it sets out with great authority a point which has been referred to again and again today. Common land is in most cases

private land. Sir Ivor says this in paragraph 55:
The use of common land for rambling, playing games, parking cars, picknicking, camping, etc., except under the authority of an Act of Parliament or by licence of the owner of the soil, is unlawful. It is private land and the law relating to private land applies.
Starting from that foundation, we go on to the Report's recommendation that there shall be a right of access to the common land. That means that the Minister will have to look at the regulations set out in Appendix V of the Report and part of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, 1949. There is another recommendation in the Report about the precise type of byelaws which it is recommended should be passed. I should like to make one or two references to those later.
The purpose of all this, to my mind—and I hope that it is the purpose which the Minister has in mind—is so that it will be possible for land to be put to proper use. It was suggested by an hon. Member that there was also quite a lot of common land which is not known as such perhaps to the people who should register and it would be wise to consider that type of land as well. I have been told that in the parish in which I live there are 250 acres of land not owned by anybody which is completely waste land and on which nothing is happening. I do not know whether that figure is correct or not. However, if it is correct, or anywhere near correct, it may well be that if similar pockets of land were looked at in other parishes there would be quite a large volume of land which could be put to good use and which would give me, at any rate, more satisfaction in looking at it.
If the Minister looks at the regulations set out in the two places to which I have referred, he will find certain things to which he should give immediate attention. The first, which is mentioned in the first recommendation about the byelaws recommended by the Report and in the regulations made under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, 1949, is that anyone who takes or allows a dog not under proper control to go on to common land is committing an offence. I do not know whether any prosecutions are taken under the Second Schedule of that Act—I have never heard of any—and I am not sure how many of these


recommendations will be carried out. But I think that the public might well appreciate a little more keenly than it does the damage and suffering which dogs cause to livestock on commons and elsewhere.
The part of Sussex where I live is well known for the Southdown breed of sheep, yet I doubt whether there are many sheep on any of the nearby farms simply because the general public allow their dogs to roam and it is impossible to preserve the sheep from harm. I have seen animals which have been frightened by dogs. One in particular, I recall, cracked its skull as a result. I thought at first that it had foot and mouth disease, because it had some peculiar symptoms which I had never seen before. But I was happy eventually to discover that it was only a cracked skull, which was bad enough in itself but not as bad as foot and mouth disease. I have seen animals with broken legs and other injuries simply because dogs are allowed to run out of control. I am as much a dog lover as anybody, but those who love animals should see that dogs are kept under proper control.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) has referred to the problem of rabbits. Overgrown common land such as I have described provides an ideal place for rabbits and all sorts of weeds such as ragwort, and difficulties are caused to adjacent owners. Another problem, which is a big one in some parts of the country, is what are known as gipsies. I am not sure that those who are called gipsies always have much Romany blood in them, but the Report of the Royal Commission makes quite clear the damage which they do. It states at page 38:
From different parts of the country we have received complaints about colonies of squatters, settling on odd corners of common land, breaking fences, damaging young trees, filching and thieving, and intimidating the neighbourhood. The trouble is no doubt localised with only a handful of families to blame, but where it exists the vagrants may live, as we have seen for ourselves, in conditions of deplorable squalor.
I hope that this is another of the problems that the Minister will consider.
There have been references also to fencing. As there has been grazing on the commons for upwards of 1,000 years, it does not seem to me to be unreasonable that the people who have introduced the new element to the common which has

made difficulties for the animals should themselves bear the responsibility for ensuring that fences are put up and animals preserved from getting on to the highway. I suggest that this problem should be dealt with by the highway authorities and that the control which is suggested in the Report should be accepted.
The first of the other two points which I wish to make concerns agricultural improvements. As commons were specifically excluded from the Agriculture Act, 1957, I am not sure whether it should be to the Minister's Department or the Ministry of Agriculture that this criticism should be directed. Perhaps between the two of them, however, they can sort out how progress can be made on commons when schemes are introduced.
My last point is that if there are to be a lot of disputed decisions about how commoners' rights are registered and related problems, it would be helpful if these could be entered in a register so that they could be consulted by people who were similarly interested. As a corollary there is the question, to which I would have referred at greater length had it not been raised earlier by an hon. Member opposite, about what happens if common land is not registered. There may well be good reasons and real incentives for not registering, and I hope that the Minister will give thought to this.
Therefore, I support the Bill and I hope that the Minister will let us know in the very near future what he intends to do as soon as the Bill has reached the Statute Book.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: I should like first to join in the general congratulations to the Minister on bringing in the Bill and introducing it in such a pleasant manner. I listened with great interest to what the right hon. Gentleman said. It was remarkably close to what his noble Friend said in another place. I do not say that it was word for word, but it was very nearly so with two additions.
If I may deal with the question raised by several hon. Members opposite concerning the delay which has occurred, it was on 10th February last year, when replying for the former Government to an


Adjournment debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock (Sir H. Studholme), that I said:
I am glad to have the opportunity of reaffirming this, since my hon. Friend has specifically asked me—that it is our intention to legislate broadly on the lines of those recommendations"—
as contained in the Report of the Royal Commission—
as soon as Parliamentary time permits."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th February, 1964; Vol. 689, c. 180.]
That was the crux of the matter. During the lifetime of the last Government, we had grave and important Bills to take through the House. [Interruption.] I am delighted to have agreement from the Treasury Bench. They were important Measures. They were taken through and they occupied a lot of Parliamentary time. Hon. Members opposite, after their 13 years in the wilderness, have been preparing their Bills, but not very much has happened during the first six months. I am, therefore, delighted that the Minister and his Government have found time to bring this Bill before the House.
Basically, the conflict—and there must always be a conflict when dealing with commons and common land—is between those who want access to it. This was said by the hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. Carol Johnson), who is, I believe, a member of the Ramblers' Association, of which he is an ardent supporter. The interests of the public who wish to have access to common land sometimes severely conflict with the interests and needs of the farming community who run their beasts on to the common land.
The Minister was a little unfair and was not quite correct when he said that commons have been run down and are derelict and when he implied that the level of production from them was disgraceful. That is not true. In many cases, there are great numbers of stock on the commons. The right hon. Gentleman has only to ask the officials of the Ministry of Agriculture or his right hon. Friend the Minister to look back over past years and see what difficulties arose in, say, 1961 to 1963 from overstocking of these moors, when it was necessary to regulate the number of animals upon them.
It is, however, true that in some parts of the country, as my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) and the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell) mentioned, land which was in production during the years between 1939 and 1945 has been allowed to go back. My hon. Friend the Member for Rye (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine) illustrated this graphically when he said that somebody preferred to see gorse and horse rather than grass, cows and cattle. It is a pity that the land has gone back. Before anything can be done, however, the Government should be in a position to know what is common land, who has rights upon it and what the status of the land should be.
I am certain that the Bill is the right method of approaching the problem. This is the first step, but it is not a very big step forward, although to the extent that nothing has happened for a long time it can be said to be a large step forward even though it does not go very far. What it does is to establish status and rights and various other things will, and must, flow from this Measure if we are to get on with the task, which hon. Members want done, of improving the common lands which have gone back and increasing the productivity of those which are being farmed. There are all sorts of difficulties. A conflict may arise between those who use the commons for pleasure and those who farm upon them. My hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock underlined that point particularly when he said that on Dartmoor, which is in his constituency and is a National Park where a great many of the public go, people do not pay as much attention as they should to the welfare of the stock on the moor and the interests of the farmers. There must be a two-way toleration in this respect if the commons are to be used in the right manner. Visitors to the moor must realise that others have rights which they must respect.
Turning to the new matters which were referred to by the Minister, and which were additional to what was said by his noble Friend in another place the first point concerned the declaration which will be required for the establishment of rights. The explanation given by the Minister did not go quite far enough for my liking. Now that the Government have amended the Bill so as to allow any


person who feels he has a right to put in an application for registration, it is of prime importance that we should know the kind of declaration which must accompany the application for registration. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will outline this in more detail and indicate what evidence will be needed. Hon. Members will realise that once the Government have opened that door so wide—I do not disagree with their action—there is likely to be misuse and abuse in respect of these applications. There are some people who have nothing better to do than make phoney, stupid and frivolous applications. We ought not to make the process of application onerous and difficult. We must steer a middle course.
The second point concerned the date of 1967. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I understood him to say that in his view the appointed day when the registers would be open would be in 1967. I find it difficult to understand why this should be the date and why there should be a delay from now until January, 1967. I should have thought that an excessive period.

Mr. Willey: I share the anxiety of the hon. Gentleman and his wish to shorten the period. We must bear in mind that not only have we to make preparations for registration but we must be assured that people who wish to take steps to secure their rights are properly informed of the action which it is necessary to take, so that they may have prior knowledge before we begin to register.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I appreciate the point, but nevertheless from the appointed day onwards there is still to be a period of three years during which registration may take place. I know that the Ministry is making an arbitrary break by regulation, although he has been speaking as if this was contained in the Bill. It is to be done by regulation, although the right hon. Gentleman could change his mind about that. With the extra year and three quarters between now and 1967, plus the three years, there will be a total of four and three-quarter years, which I think is longer than would be needed for this purpose. There is a remaining period of two years for objections to be made. I fully appreciate that people must be made aware of what

they have to do, but the preparation of the registers will not take anything like as long as that. It is a question of disseminating information to those concerned.
My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) referred to publicity, and that is very important. If the Minister leaves things as they are, I think we may find ourselves in difficulties, and the right hon. Gentleman would need not only the year and three-quarters, but perhaps longer. If he uses all the facilities for publicity which are at the command of the Government—heaven knows right hon. Gentlemen opposite are experts in using publicity for their own purposes and now they have a chance to use it for the commoners—I am sure that any difficulties will be overcome and we may shorten the period.
I am glad that the Government decided to amend Clause 9 and to make that part which will be conclusive apply only to the status and rights of commoners. Had that amendment not been made, I think that we should have experienced difficulty over the wording of the Clause. As was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield), it is a pity that the Government have not found it possible to bring in some measure whereby ownership could be defined and conclusively decided. I accept the argument which the Minister has advanced, and which was advanced by his noble Friend, that it is quite impossible to do so within a three-year or a five-year period.
I cannot see why the suggestion of my hon. Friend, that registration for ownership purpose might run parallel with registration for common rights and status, cannot be adopted. That would pose no particular problem and at least a start would be made. It would enable us to cut down the length of time necessary. I think that the right hon. Gentleman would accept the recommendation of the Royal Commission and want conclusive evidence of ownership of the common land at the end of whatever the period may happen to be. That is necessary and desirable for the later stages which were referred to by the Minister and which will be important from the point of view of management and control of common land, particularly in respect of


such matters as mineral rights and the ex traction of water. His noble Friend said that there are few registrations of common land in the Land Registry and a great deal of leeway has to be made up. I should have thought that parallel registration for the purpose would be necessary and I hope that the Minister will examine this matter to see whether that is possible. Perhaps an Amendment could be made at a later stage.
The next point raised by the right hon. Gentleman related to the gap of ownership which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Rye and other hon. Members. The Government intend to bring in an Amendment during the Committee stage to fill the gap in the legislation between those cases where status and common rights have been registered and where no owner is found. In the case of village greens and so on, the land is vested in the local authority, but in the case of commons, as the Bill stands, it is as shall be directed by Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman's noble Friend in the other place gave an undertaking that, as this was unsatisfactory, an Amendment would be brought in. It was unsatisfactory because there could be erosions of the common during the periods between the time of registration and the next stage coming in after five years. Part of the common might have been taken, or squatters might have come on to the common and there might be no owner who could stand behind legal action, as has happened in the past. Where no owner has been found no action could be taken.
His noble Friend therefore promised to bring in an Amendment, but only concerning the criminal proceedings, for the preservation of the common land and common rights. He was pressed by a noble Lord from the opposition side, who asked if he would extend this Amendment to cover cases in the civil court. The noble Lord gave this undertaking:
The matter has been considered, but the provision is difficult to draft. It is still under consideration and we hope to be able to do something to meet the views of the noble Lord, Lord Molson."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT. House of Lords; Vol. 264, c. 429.]
That refers to civil action. Could the Parliamentary Secretary let us know if he has been able to find words to cover not only the criminal but the civil side,

as that may arise during the interim period? I hope that he has. I believe that the civil side should be covered as well.
The Government have now opened the door wide and allowed anybody to register. I have talked about the documents and proof which will be needed and I hope that the Government will say what they have in mind there. What will this register include, over and above the registration of common rights and the registration of ownership as it is at the moment? If hon. Members look at the Bill, they will see that local authorities which run these registers are given permissive powers to include in the register any other information which they so desire. This, I suppose, covers matters like access, water extraction rights, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and the question of mineral rights, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills), and many other matters.
I understand from the OFFICIAL REPORT of the proceedings in another place that this register is solely to provide the information and for no other purpose. It seems to me that the local authorities are being asked, if they so wish, to clutter up the register with all this extra information. It is useful to know that it is there, but I fail to see, unless the Government intend to take some further action like securing the access, securing or regulating the amount of water to be extracted, minerals and so on, what the purpose is. I believe that further action is necessary. I should like to press the Parliamentary Secretary to give us an answer on this point. I think that it is important that we should know whether it is the Government's intention at a later stage to take powers for this purpose. Otherwise, I think that it might be difficult to persuade the local authorities to publish all the information which exists and to extract it from this large register. I think that this is important.
There is yet another point concerning access to the commons. One cannot help but wonder what will happen when there is a dispute about access or ownership. This is something on which I am not quite clear. I read HANSARD on this point carefully. When there is a dispute over registration of ownership, as I understand it, all disputes will be referred by the local


authority, the registration authority, to the Commons Commissioners for settlement. Therefore, if they are referred to the Commons Commissioners for settlement, is there not a danger that this settlement could have a greater force of law, that the dispute, argument and settlement will have quasi-legal force? Will it not have a semi-legal standing in the courts as far as the ownership issue is concerned? I notice in the OFFICIAL REPORT of the debate in another place that this was discussed. There was some doubt in the mind of Lord Mitchison over this and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary can clear up this point.
Finally, I should like to turn to the land registers and the ownership issue. The difficulty has arisen over this particular section of the Bill because there is so much past legislation and the Land Registry which is kept at the moment is completely confidential. To have two registers side by side would make it confusing if they both had the same force. I cannot feel that to have a register of common rights and of status without having in it the existing ownership, if it exists in the land registry, can be right. Therefore, I ask the Government whether they cannot find some way round the difficulty of getting the Land Registry to divulge the name of the owner of a piece of land for which common rights or common status has been registered. It would be useful if this could be done. We should then have a completely comprehensive register. This would be done only on the question of status and ownership, so it would not be conclusive, but it would be there and it would be exhaustive. The present situation makes things difficult.
Perhaps a more important matter is that concerning common rights as opposed to ownership. The point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rye and by an hon. Member on the Government side concerning the definition of what commoners' rights are. This is an extremely difficult problem. The Ministry's difficulty—this was said by the Minister's noble Friend in another place—is that in following the recommendation of the Royal Commission, there is absolutely no way of defining closely what rights are meant by this.

The best thing, therefore, to do is stated in paragraph 275 of the Report:
…to allow the commoner in his claim to rights of common of pasture to define them himself.
There is a further recommendation as well. I must agree with this. This is the right thing to do. One has to be very careful as to how one goes about this, particularly when we look at Clause 14, which is a Clause which could restrict the number of animals which one will be allowed to graze. My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and others of my hon. Friends raised this point.
It is extremely important because one comes here to the question of stints. My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South made the point that on only a small percentage is there a recognised stint. In Cornwall, other than for certain forms of deficiency payments and production grants, there are no recognised stints, as far as I know, and a great percentage of the common land is unstinted, so that there is no limit at the moment. The way in which the Bill is drafted and the way in which the Minister made his speech will encourage commoners to register their rights with the maximum number of beasts which they can possibly graze. It says that there will be no adjustment. This is final. The Bill says that when the registration has become final, it will be exercisable accordingly.
Obviously therefore, any commoner on a common which is unstinted and on which he has rights of pasturage will register the maximum number which he can. Indeed, if I were asked, I would recommend to my constituents that this was the right thing to do.
No doubt there will be disputes. The local registration authority will think that this is outrageous and may well say so. There might well be an enormous number of beasts registered for rights of pasturage. These matters have to go before the Commons Commissioner—and this answers the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Rye. As I understand it, the matter would go to the Commons Commissioner, and his decision would be final as to how many animals each person who had established his right on unstinted common would be allowed to run on the common.
This is an important point and no criteria are laid down in the Bill to meet it. The Parliamentary Secretary may say that the Minister intends to do this by regulation, but I cannot find any powers in Clause 18 which enable him to lay down the criteria. Perhaps I am wrong. Unless some criteria are laid down for the Commons Commissioners by which they will judge how to apportion the unstinted land, it could give rise to a great deal of difficulty. For example, this will be most ill-received in Bodmin Moor, in my part of the country, unless the Government come out into the open more with their intentions. I hope that they will do so because we want to get this right, and I am not making this argument in any partisan spirit. The criteria must be laid down.
I beg right hon. Gentlemen opposite not to take as an example the hill farming subsidy scheme or to use that as a model. That is not necessarily a right way. There we have a one-to-six ratio for cows per acre, but in this case a completely new assessment is necessary. The whole point of the exercise is to improve the pastures in order to carry more stock. The Minister of Agriculture has been making noises along these lines over the last two months since the Price Review, as part of his new policy. If that is so—and I accept that his intentions are good, although his methods are bad—then he wishes to increase the amount of stock running on the hills—sheep, cattle or even ponies, which are important on Bodmin Moor, Dartmoor and Exmoor.
In these circumstances there must be provision for changing the apportionment. I have searched the Bill thoroughly and I can see no method of varying the position. I wondered whether it would he possible under Clauses 15 and 19. I wondered whether the power would rest with the Minister to change a decision made under Clause 14. But I do not think that it does rest with him and there seem to be no regulatory powers under Clause 18 to allow him to do so. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will put our fears at rest. I am sure that he wishes to have this power to change the apportionment upwards, or indeed downwards, as the area is improved. There must be power to vary what has been decided by the Commons Commissioner or what is laid down in the deed of the

land to which the right attaches. There must be power to increase the apportionment in proportion to all the other commoners in the area.
How shall we assess not only the availability but the quality of the pastures on the commons? Are we to relate it to the inby land or, as they say in Wales, the free-standing land? At the end of the debate in another place Lord Mitchison moved an Amendment to include in registration the land to which the common rights were attached. He called it the dominant land. In the West Country we call it the inby land. This is important, and to a certain extent it changes the scope of the Bill. By the inclusion of the words "dominant land", it seems that this will be one of the criteria, and we should like this more fully explained by the Parliamentary Secretary.
Many commons, particularly in the West Country—not Dartmoor, but Exmoor in particular and the Quantock Hills—run down to the sea. The common land runs right up to the sea. Clause 22 provides that the Royal property held by Her Majesty shall be included in the Bill. Land which is under water is included in the Bill for registration. Does it include tidal waters? I gather that the Parliamentary Secretary says "No", but, with all respect, I do not think that he is right to say that off the cuff. I think that that type of land is included. If it is, there will arise questions of right of mooring and access of boats. Will the Parliamentary Secretary let me know whether this land is included? I feel that it is. I do not think that that is necessarily a bad thing, but special care will have to be taken and special provisions made in those cases.
I come to the question of the dominant land, the inby land, which is owned by perhaps one owner at the moment. It may be ten acres. Those ten acres of dominant land are included in the Bill as the result of an Amendment made in another place. The owner has rights on a particular common to run perhaps 10 cattle and 100 ewes. Let us take it that the land is then split up—that the owner sells it and gets planning permission to build five houses on ten acres. How will the apportionment be done, and who will do it? How will it be decided? Under Clause 14 it looks as though once


again the stinting and carving up will have to be done by the Commons Commissioner. This is a difficult point. Provision is made for new registration but not for the apportionment of existing rights.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torrington urged that the small farmer should have priority in the stinting by the Commons Commissioner. I understand his argument. The same argument applies in my area in Cornwall. I hope that the small farmer will be given generous treatment by the Commons Commissioner, and I am sure that he will if the Government lay down the right and proper criteria by which the Commons Commissioner will make his judgment and apportionment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torrington was right in his comments about the registration of marks. Beasts have marks which could be easily identified. We had enough trouble over the hill cow subsidy, and these marks might facilitate the handling of any difficulties which arise in the future.
My hon. Friends the Members for Rye, Torrington and others asked about the fencing of the roads, which is becoming more and more necessary. The local registration authorities will have to take note of this problem, and it will cut across the desire of the hon. Member for Lewisham, South to have free access. Bodmin Moor, in my constituency, is a very bad moor for accidents, and the Ministry of Transport have decided to pay for the fencing of certain parts of seven miles of Bodmin Moor. This is being done in conjunction with the county council and the commoners' association. I am happy to say that the Ministry is paying most of the cost.
It means that a certain amount of enclosure is taking place. To this extent there is a restriction on the public's access to the land, and it is worth mentioning that it will not always work to the advantage of all of my constituents. It means, for example, that their beasts cannot cross the road when they must be taken from one part of the common to another. The costly process of building under-passes is involved, as in the New Forest, and we must seriously think of these problems.
The fencing is being done on busy roads along which traffic whizzes and I agree that we must consider not only the slaughter of sheep, with which the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), who I regret is not in his place, was concerned, but also the slaughter of humans, whose cars are frequently smashed on these stretches of road. I hope that the example set on the A.30 for Bodmin Moor will be followed elsewhere and that the Ministry will bear the main part of the cost.
It is incredible that throughout this debate—from 3.30 p.m. until now, and it is 8 o'clock—the Liberal Party was represented during only the first 10 minutes. It is incredible for more than one reason. The hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), whose absence I regret, has made great play about the difficulties faced by some of his constituents in regard to Exmoor. The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) has many constituents who are interested in Bodmin Moor. It is surprising that the hon. Members of the Liberal Party have found this Bill so unimportant that they have not honoured us with their presence. I am sure that the public will understand that something is wrong.
I conclude by congratulating the Minister on introducing the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South pointed out, there are many things about which we will quiz him in Committee. Heaven help us if we get into the sort of difficulties into which their Lordships found themselves in this matter. We will have some searching questions to ask. Meanwhile, on behalf of my hon. Friends, I welcome the Bill.

8.3 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources (Mr. Arthur Skeffington): I have the very pleasant task of trying to answer the large number of constructive and interesting points which have been made. It is a great pleasure because I am fascinated by this subject. Nevertheless, I approach the task with a certain amount of diffidence because, although the object of the legislation is simple and although its three main objects are agreed between us, in clothing the matter in its legislative form we have been led along certain paths which are not always easy


to follow. Despite this, I will do my best to answer the questions which have been posed. I am confident that those who carefully follow every sentence uttered by Ministers will see that if unintentionally I confuse anybody or any matter, that will be put right at the earliest possible moment.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House are to be congratulated on the introduction of the Bill. True, as the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) pointed out, we inherited it. Equally true, as he said, we found it in a pigeon hole—though it was a bit dusty and we had to give it a good spring-cleaning before bringing it to the House. Therefore, we deserve some credit for having introduced it in six weeks rather than six years.
I hope, first, to answer the questions asked about "other rights." This matter was raised by the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South and the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins). They wondered what sort of additional rights were contained in Clause 3(1). We have in mind the minor rights such as sporting rights, which are sometimes important, charges, easements and rights of way which are not common rights. It is felt that these sort of rights should be noted in the register. They are not actually given the status, as it were, of registered details, but merely noted in the register. Details will be prescribed by the Minister and it will not be for the local registration authority to deride what must be noted.
After consideration and the necessary consultation, these details will, as I say, be prescribed by the Minister, the idea being to get and give as complete a picture as is consonant with our objectives in the second stage, when we come to the legislation which will carry out further recommendations of the Royal Commission.
We wish to achieve then what all hon. Members desire: greater productivity and so on. This noted right is not something that is unlimited: it does not have the same status as other matters. For example, we do not propose that these details should be published and objections to them received. They are notes to help everyone concerned to get a fuller picture of the pieces of land which are involved, either as greens or commons.
A number of questions were asked about the ownership of specific pieces of land, and the title to ownership when registration begins. I can best answer these questions by adducing what would normally be considered a rather conservative argument; that here we are dealing with what has always been considered in law to be the greatest of all forms of property, the title to which should be most carefully scrutinised. There must be safeguards and, bearing in mind the period of 12 years which the Commission had in mind, this would mean conferring on owners a privilege which is not enjoyed by any other section and a privilege which could be secured on, perhaps, incomplete evidence.
We sometimes talk about documentary evidence. The kind of evidence which the registration authorities will have will not go nearly as far as that required by the Land Registry. To satisfy the Land Registry in order to get exclusive title other matters than those which we propose to place in the Regulations must be disclosed. There are such things as mortgages, leases and adverse rights. In that case those details are properly required because, after all, they are to be kept confidential by the Land Registry. The details with which we are concerned cannot be kept confidential, as a result of which those other details are not sought. Therefore, we would be left in the position of giving absolute title on evidence which must be considered to be far from complete. For the purpose of registration what we propose is adequate, but to go to the extent of conferring an absolute title to land might, as I hope hon. Members will agree, mean taking an undue risk.
There are two other points in connection with this argument. To ask for additional details would put a very much heavier burden on the commons registration authorities than will the details we now propose. We do not think this proposal will be excessive. Further, even if these authorities could find the qualified staff needed to do this rather more detailed and careful study, the Land Registry itself would not be able to deal with the flood of cases we expect in the 18 months after the appointed day.
For all those reasons, I must tell the House that we cannot give the same sort of status to ownership as to common


rights and the qualification of the conmon itself—

Mr. Corfield: I appreciate many of the points the Parliamentary Secretary makes, particularly the administrative ones, although I have never been wholly able to understand why the Land Registry has to be so confidential. I know that it has to be so in law, but whether the reasons for that are good, I do not know. I do not know whether the 12-year period suggested by the Royal Commission was purely ad hoc, but it happens to be the same period needed for common law title on first possession. It seems a pity that we should waste the first five years—let it run on—and then say that because of the old common law period it must go on for another 12 years, making it a 17-year period. Can we not make the first five years play at least some part in hastening the date when we get a reasonably firm view of the ownership of these commons?

Mr. Skeffington: I will certainly undertake to look at that point. We do go some way to meet the hon. Gentleman's point because Clause 11 says that a subsequent sale after registration of the fee simple, or of a lease of 40 years or more or one with an unexpired term of 40 years or more would have to be registered. In other words, if the purchaser did not register, he would not have a good title. So we go some way to meeting that point. In volume, however, it is much smaller and can therefore be coped with, as we think, by the Land Registry.
The other very important point, made by several hon. Members, was the difficult one about common rights sans nombre, and the difficulties we might get into there. We are not at present finally deciding what may be the best scheme for the management of the common—that comes later. There will have to be powers in the second stage either to reduce the number of animals, even if common rights have been registered, or, in some cases, to extend the numbers where the capacity of an area of land has, by the use of modern methods, been increased.
There will have to be such powers in the second stage, but I think that the difficulties that have been anticipated may have been exaggerated. The Royal

Commission started from the point of view, which it put in the Glossary, in page 276:
In the case of common appurtenant sans nombre the principle of levancy and couchancy is held to apply; in the case of common in gross sans nombre the right is limited to as many cattle as the common will maintain over and above the levant and couchant cattle of the lord and commoners.
The Royal Commission accepted that. I think that it was right, because the whole history and interpretation of the law on this kind of land says that we cannot possibly have the right without number to the cattle we can commonly graze or use in some other way with a common right. That has been held in all the manorial records. It was laid down by Chief Justice Babington in the reign of Henry VI:
A claim of common sans nombre cannot mean a claim of feeding for innumerable beasts, but for a number not certain.
That is not an absolutely clear definition, but it shows that the number is not unlimited, and Cooke's Inclosure Acts, the 4th Edition, goes very much further—and this has been dicta and quoted in the courts in very many of these cases:
Any user of common of pasture claimed as appurtenant not limited in number, and not capable of being limited by levancy and couchancy is not the exercise of a right, but the doing of that which cannot possibly be other than a wrong.
All the decisions have followed in this light, and it is clear that in this case "without number" does not just mean that. This is known, and the Commons Commissioners, when there are objections to numbers, will, with assessors, having regard to the customs of the locality, the fertility of the locality, and so on, be able to put on some limitation. One could also get the sort of case where a large number of commoners make claims that are unlimited and there are no objections, and the registration authority at that stage is not itself empowered, as the House will understand, to place a limitation. That must come later. That must come in the second stage with reference to schemes of management, when there will have to be the right to reduce—or, in some cases, to extend—the number of cattle in a particular area; otherwise a scheme of management would be meaningless.
The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South and other hon. Members have


asked about right of access. Perhaps I may say in general that the Government are preparing a whole countryside policy, of which the second stage of this legislation will form a very important part. I might sum up our intention by saying that we want to allow, as far as possible, the greatest access to this kind of village green or common consonant with two other factors. One of the factors is the genuine rights of fee simple ownership and the other is the point beyond which the public should not have access in view of the best agricultural use of areas. A balance in judgment will have to be made in connection with this Bill in relation to schemes of management and, in a wider connection, by our regional designation of land use. In all this my right hon. Friend will play a part, his being they Ministry which will have to make up its mind on many of these competing uses.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. Carol Johnson) in a very interesting speech—and we all know his excellent work in connection with the very fine work done by the Commons, Open Spaces and Footpaths Preservation Society—referred to rights of access. I think that what I have said will satisfy him—I hope so, because it is as far as I can go until we have the countryside policy.
My hon. Friend, and the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) and other hon. Members asked about the definition of common land itself and the definition of common rights. As far as I know, no Statute attempts a comprehensive definition of common land. It is fraught with difficulties for all sorts of reasons—historical reasons, reasons of definition, and others. The old definition in the Commons Act, 1899, which has been reincorporated in the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962, merely said that it included any land subject to be enclosed under the Inclosure Acts, 1845–82, and any town or village green. We have gone a good deal further than that, because we refer to the waste land of a manor, which means waste land attached to a manor but unenclosed, and to village greens. Clause 21(1) states that:
…'common land' means—
land subject to rights of common (as defined in this Act) whether those rights are

exercisable at all times or only during limited periods;
waste land of a manor not subject to rights of common;
land occupied or used in common by the owners of parts of the land, whether or not distinguishable, or by persons claiming through them…
Again, having looked at the matter, I do not think that what we have decided closes the definition for all time. It is a great deal more extensive than that which has been used in other Acts dealing with the subject and we do not at this stage anticipate any difficulty.
The point was raised about commons of the future. They may be created in several ways, for instance, by a grant by an individual, by prescription or in substitution for common land compulsorily acquired. They would come under the Clause as land which could be registered because they would be new commons, but for the existing commons this definition is, we believe, quite wide enough. When we come to the question of common rights, I agree much with what was said by the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead, that the public would be appalled if they realised that often they had no rights at all on commons. That is absolutely true. We had wondered whether or not to go a great deal further than we have done in the definition, but there would be obvious dangers in doing so.
The more we spelled this out, by implication if we did not include a fairly long schedule of all the rights we should be excluding other possible common rights. I doubt whether anyone, even the Royal Commission, was fully aware of all the rights which have been exercised over many hundreds of years in different parts of the country. We could not go so far as the definition in a famous text book which says that a
'right of common' is a right 'which a person may have to take part of the natural produce of another man s land, e.g., a right to the herbage (a right of common of pasture); a right to take tree toppings or gorse, furze, bushes or underwood etc. (a right of estovers); a right to take turf or peat (a right of common of turbary); a right to take fish (a right of common of piscary; this right cannot exist in the sea or generally in a tidal navigable river).'
We did include cattle gates as they seemed a very obvious form of right which has not always been included. By defining the matter in this way, as my noble Friend said in the House of Lords


we have left the door open for rights which have existed over a long period to be included. If we attempted to define further we might exclude other rights of very long use. Again if during Committee hon. Members have brain-waves and think that they can do better than the pundits have done over the last 100 years, I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be glad to look at the points they raise.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South and other hon. Members raised the question of publicity. He will have noticed that there are various parts of the Bill, Clauses 5 and 18 in particular, which give my right hon. Friend the opportunity of making Regulations—which of course he will make—to see that adequate publicity of registration of rights in the first place and of objections in the second is given. My right hon. Friend proposes to make sure that copies of the relevant sections of the register are with every district council and parish council. Further, he proposes to use Section 288 of the Local Government Act, 1933, which provides that:
A notice or other document required to be affixed to the offices of a local authority or to a town hall shall be exhibited in some conspicuous place on or near the outer door of the offices of the authority or of the town hall, or, if the authority have no offices or there is no town hall, in some conspicuous place in the area of the local authority or in the area to which the notice or document relates.
That is a very wide power which my right hon. Friend proposes to use in full.
A point was made by another hon. Member about whether in relatively simple language the details of this Bill when it becomes an Act can be made known to local authorities. That will be done. I think the hon. Member said that every householder should have a copy, but I do not think we could get away with that expenditure. Every possible practical way of bringing this information to the notice of people concerned, particularly through district and parish councils, will be made use of by my right hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South spoke about access as suggested in the Royal Commission Report. I have already given the definition and that is as far as I can go. There

will be the greatest possible access subject to the two limitations to which I referred.
I was glad that the hon. Member for Tavistock (Sir H. Studholme) in general supports the Bill. I thought when he started his speech that he would make a case for special legislation for Dartmoor. I can well understand the feelings of some people there. He wondered whether it would be possible to have a management scheme similar to that of the Court of Verderers of the New Forest, but that would be the second stage. There may be some such basis for a group of commoners to administer a scheme in that way.
My hon. Frend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) asked if I could spell out a little further the reasons why the beautiful common of which he is a conservator could not be exempted at this stage. I am sure that many hon. Members have enjoyed the splendid views and facilities provided by the conservators of that common. There were four reasons suggested why Wimbledon Common might be excluded:

"(1) The Crown itself has common rights which it is preserving;
(2) Rights of way would appear to be rights of common as they are not excluded in the interpretation Clause 21(1) and this would lead to many vexatious problems;
(3) The right to erect clothes posts in certain areas would appear to preclude the Minister from granting exemption; and (4) for other reasons."

I must make it absolutely clear that we are advised—and I am sure this is right—that the rights mentioned in reasons 2 and 3 are not common rights. Therefore, this would be no ground, but the most important reason is that in the case of the New Forest and Epping Forest, by their own legislation the managers undertake to keep a register of common rights, which are very much in accord with the requirements of the Bill and to keep the register up to date. There is no such provision in the Wimbledon Common Act of 1871. We cannot at this stage exempt the common, but the Conservators can apply for exemption and if common rights have not been exercised for 30 years I imagine—I do not want to pre-judge the question—that there would be no difficulty in Wimbledon Common being exempt. I gather from the Crown Commissioners that they would not object to exemption and are


not proposing to register those rights. I hope that that will enable my hon. Friend to know why we cannot at the moment accept exemption.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), in his interesting speech, asked us to regard with caution the suggestion that we should extend the definition of common rights. I have already a greed that we do not intend to do that.
The hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Ma wby) made a number of points, nearly all of which were for the second stage rather than for the first stage. He is not here now. When I see him I can make the several points to him which I would have made had he been here now.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes) raised points of doubt which, indeed, were echoed to some extent by the hon. Member for Rye (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine). The first was where the ownership of a common is not known or where the owner deliberately refrains from registering, no doubt in some cases with the view that he may get an unencumbered piece of property because, if he does not register, people are not likely to register rights or to object to any rights which have been registered. My hon. Friend will no doubt have noted that the Commons Registration Authority will refer these cases to the Commons Commissioners, who will endeavour to find the owner. In many cases we believe, for reasons which I can give at a later stage, that this may be possible.
Further, the Bill has been drafted in such a way that any person—not only the Commons Registration Authority, but any person; "any person" in this connection also means any local authority a parish council, a district council, any person—can in fact put in a claim as to the commons. Consequently we think that it is very unlikely that much common land will escape the net, because of both these safeguards. Again I give the assurance which I have already tried to give about publicity so that everybody will know.
The hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. More) made an eloquent defence of the Inclosure Acts, which might have been more appropriate 100 years ago than today. I do not think that I should be drawn on this matter, even if I should be

in order were I to answer him, except to say that many other countries have quite a good agricultural system, despite the fact that one small group did not steal the land from the rest of the people, as happened in England. I will not pursue that line of argument. Nor did I altogether agree with the hon. Gentleman's estimate of the habits of the English people when in the countryside. However, whether I agree with him or not, it would be folly for any Administration not to realise that, with the growth of population and with the increase in the number of motor cars on the roads, more and more people will want, and ought to have, access to the countryside. We shall do better if we provide that in a regular way, rather than find the country being spoiled because there is not adequate provision. Our countryside policy will go a long way towards taking care of this problem.
The hon. Member for Ludlow and several other hon. Members asked who the assessors would be. The assessors will be agricultural experts with knowledge of methods, particularly in the locality. It is true, as the hon. Gentleman said, that one way of getting the evidence before the Commissioner would be to call expert witnesses. This can be done. There are cases when expert witnesses are not called or when expert witnesses disagree or when expert witnesses are called by one party but not by the others. In these circumstances it seems to us to be desirable that the Commons Commissioner should have expert information and knowledge about husbandry supplied to him by an individual who knows the customs in the area and who can give him the technical advice. It seems to us that he is likely to make a much better assessor if he has these attributes. This problem has been discussed by the Council on Tribunals, which has no objections to this procedure. It is therefore proposed to go ahead with this proposal.
The hon. Member also asked me about the financial burden. As far as we can see, this is likely to be very slight in any one registration authority. There are 141 such authorities. The largest estimate of the cost we can make is£1 million spread over four or five years, so amongst 141 authorities it will be very minimal indeed per year. The smaller authorities may be marginally assisted by rate deficiency grant arrangements so that any hardship


would be lessened. At this stage we do not foresee that this is a substantial financial burden. We think that authorities will be able to cope with it without too much difficulty.
The hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) asked about the definition. He pointed out that we had a different definition in connection with claims to rights of common than "common rights". Our advisers say that there is no difference. I hope this will reassure the hon. Gentleman. At any rate, we can look at the matter again in Committee.
The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead referred to the various rights of individuals and the extent to which these might be the subject of an agreement at a later stage. He asked whether people might inflate the number of cattle or other beasts in their registration. We hope that almost from this moment, now that it is known that the Bill is getting a Second Reading, all those who have rights will begin to think about them and we also hope that many voluntary agreements will be made amongst the parties. We trust that the fact that they will have to register in about 18 months from now will encourage this getting together. In the past it has not been worthwhile, because no action would have followed, but now that these people have the opportunity to register their rights we hope that there will not be any need at a later stage either for elaborate schemes of management or for objections to be made because some owners have put in an inflated number of cattle or have claimed other exaggerated rights. We believe that publicity should greatly help to produce the desired result.
I was asked whether numbers of sheep could be registered. There are various classes, and sheep certainly come in one class, as do cattle.

Mr. Allason: Would the hon. Gentleman deal with the point that I raised as to whether the registration authority would have any part in trying to negotiate a settlement of these cases?

Mr. Skeffington: Not directly. It is only the authority gathering the information. Of course, influence could be used to bring the parties together. There is

nothing to prevent them taking voluntary action. I hope this will be done, but there is no statutory right in the matter. Indeed, it would be open to great objection if there were. We hope, before there are any formal objections, that the commoners will see the sense of putting their own house in order, and I believe that this is a powerful incentive for them to do so.
I am sorry if I am detaining the House too long, but there are still a few more points outstanding and I am dealing with them as carefully as I can. The hon. Member for Cornwall, North asked whether it would be possible to speed up the period. We are prepared to look at this suggestion. We have given careful thought to it, and we do not see how we can do it without doing harm or being unfair to some of the interests concerned, but I give the assurance that if we can do so we certainly will.
I think I have answered the point relating to the registration of substantial numbers of cattle and the power to reduce the numbers. This is a matter which will have to arise later when there are schemes of management. If there are objections, these matters will go to the Commons Commissioners.
Reference was made to maps. So far as dominant land is concerned in the regulations that we propose to make it will be possible for a narrative description to be given. Some people might use home-made maps, so long as they are reasonably accurate and the areas are identifiable. Indeed, if one claimant cares to use the same map put in by another claimant—this is a common enough procedure—it will settle the difficulty. My right hon. Friend will be having conversations with the Ordnance Survey. In some counties the areas are so large that they may well be identifiable on a six-inch ordnance survey map. Therefore, we do not think at this stage that there will be any difficulty.
There was also the question of charging, which one hon. Member raised. There will be no charge whatsoever for looking at the register. If somebody wants information sent by post, perhaps a copy of the entry, it is proposed that there should be a nominal charge of about 2s. 6d. Therefore, through the raising of any impost I do not think that


information will not be available. It is only when authorities are put to some trouble for which they should be compensated that there will be a nominal charge, and I emphasise that it will be nominal.
The hon. Member for Cornwall, North asked about tidal waters. I think I am right in saying that these are outside the scope of the Bill. It is true that there is in it a description of land covered by water, but that is a lake. Most tidal waters are technically Crown property though there are foreshore rights. I shall look further at the point, but I think that my snap answer is probably right.
I have tried to answer as many points as I could. The commons and village greens and town greens of England are a great and joyous part of our heritage. Thy Royal Commission recalls the story of how the Swedish botanist Linnaeus came and fell down in humble thanks before a gorse bush on an English common on his first visit to this country. I do not expect hon. Members to show that kind of enthusiasm. Dr. Hoskins's book contains some stanzas from John Clare. I should like to read to the House the last four lines which were written round about 1830. They are:
Ye commons left free in the rude rags of nature.
Ye brown heaths beclothed in furze as ye be,
My wild eye in rapture adores every feature,
Ye are dear as this heart in my bosom to me.
I do not suggest that hon. Members have that degree of enthusiasm either, but commons and greens are characteristic of our countryside. I believe that today we are writing a new chapter of a new Domesday Book by which we can properly preserve and extend their benefits from the point of view of the produce and amenities which they offer. I hope that historians will think that we are as right in this first chapter as those who wrote the Domesday Book in 1065.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Commitee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

COMMONS REGISTRATION [MONEY]

[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 88 (Money Committees).

[Sir SAMUEL STOREY in the Chair]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the registration of common land and of town or village greens, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Minister of Land and Natural Resources in paying to the Commons Commissioners and assessors appointed under that Act fees and travelling and other allowances and in providing those Commissioners with services and facilities for the discharge of their functions;
((b)) any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament by way of Rate-deficiency Grant or Exchequer Equalisation Grant under the enactments relating to local government in England and Wales or in Scotland.—[Mr. Skeffington.]

8.43 p.m.

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: I should be glad if whoever replies on behalf of the Government would explain paragraph (b) of the Money Resolution. Why is it necessary to have the sums of money payable out of the rate-deficiency grant? Why has this clumsy method been chosen?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources (Mr. Arthur Skeffington): This is the only way now in which a contribution can be made to authorities where they might benefit. There is no other way in which it can be done, and as this is the common form it has been incorporated in the Resolution.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported

Report to be received Tomorrow.

DEVELOPMENT OF INVENTIONS BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

8.45 p.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Roy Mason): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Hon. Members may wonder why I have risen to move the Third Reading. I should explain at once that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology is indisposed today. He has a rather bad cold which necessitated a day in bed.
The discussion of the Bill in Committee was both constructive and very helpful, and I thank all hon. Members who took part. We are all agreed, irrespective of which side of the House we are on, that the National Research Development Corporation is doing a good job. This is shown by the fact that hon. Members have had only praise for the Corporation. Any comments they have had, and I say comments advisedly rather than criticism, have been reserved for the Bill.
Hon. Members opposite had put down certain amendments, which they described as probing amendments. These dealt entirely with questions of reporting to this House, either in the Corporation's annual report or in its accounts. My right hon. Friend and I were able to give such assurances and explanations on the points they raised that, eventually, all the Amendments were withdrawn. I shall deal broadly with some of these points later. Then, from the Government side, we were able, with the agreement of the Committee, to make several tidying-up Amendments which did not affect the principles of the Bill at all.
I should like, if I may, to deal very briefly with the more important of these Amendments which are now in the Bill as it stands before the House. The first of them, to Clause 2, has the effect of making clear that the power of the Minister to write off an advance corresponding to a development expenditure which the Corporation has to write out of its books will apply also to expenditure on research. Clause 4 has been amended to clarify the respective responsibilities of the Corporation and the Minister in regard to projects undertaken by the Corporation at the request of a Minister, and financed at least in part by the Minister. It has also been made clear that, whilst the Minister of Technology's approval is required to arrangements of this kind, it is not needed for other arrangements between the Corporation

and a Government Department, where no finance is provided by the latter.
I do not wish to detain hon. Members long, but I wish briefly to mention one or two points which were made particularly by hon. Members opposite in Committee. We had quite a lengthy discussion about the Corporation's annual reports, and my right hon. Friend gave an undertaking that he would see that the report was made available to the House as soon as possible each year. I should add that the Corporation's annual report and accounts have always appeared together. This makes sense; one would be quite useless without the other. After 1966, the Comptroller and Auditor-General will be laying the accounts before the House, but we shall arrange it so that the report and accounts still appear together.
In Committee, there was also considerable discussion on the content of the Corporation's reports and accounts. I agree that both must be as informative as possible, subject to the reservation that the Corporation as a commercial organisation could not operate satisfactorily if confidential details about its commercial transactions had to be published.
As regards a general description of its work in the report, the Corporation fully accepts the point made by the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) on Second Reading about more continuity in the report. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) asked in Committee whether the Corporation's annual accounts should not be more informative than in the past. I am glad to say that, in consultation with the Treasury, we are now endeavouring, with the Corporation, to find a form which will present a clearer picture of the Corporation's activities.
Some anxiety was shown in Committee by the hon. Members for Hallam and Oswestry (Mr. Biffen), that each report should record details of any action taken under the two Clauses of the Bill which are designed to provide some modification of the financial conditions under which the Corporation operates. Taking first the write-off provision, the Bill provides that any application for write-off the Corporation makes to my right hon. Friend must be recorded in the report, as must be the grant of any application.


I can assure hon. Members that this should provide Parliament with adequate information about how this very important provision is working.
Taking now the provision under which the Minister can ease the burden of interest on advances to the Corporation, the amount of any grant he makes in reimbursement of interest will be seen not only in the Corporation's accounts, but also in the Ministry's Estimates and Appropriation Account. As my right hon. Friend said in Committee, it is the intention normally to give the Corporation a reimbursement grant for interest paid for the first eight years of an advance. Such a grant will not be given on advances used for non-investment purposes, for example to meet a deficit on current account. The Corporation will be expected to pay interest each yeare in future, and the appropriate grant will be paid to it annually, and will, of course, be shown as a separate item in the Corporation's accounts.
We also discussed Clause 4 in Committee, in particular whether there would be any connection between any use the Ministry of Technology might make of this Clause and the fact that the Ministry sponsors several industries. The purpose of this Clause is to enable Government Departments, including the Ministry, to make use of N.R.D.C.'s expertise in placing research and development work on our behalf and at our expense, and it may well be that the Minister might want the Corporation to manage such a project in one of the industries his Ministry is sponsoring. The Clause does not, however, give my right hon. Friend any power to ask the Corporation to do anything which is not appropriate to its functions of development and exploitation of inventions and research aimed at the production of inventions; and the Corporation will have complete freedom to decide whether or not to take on a project for the Ministry of Technology or any other Department under Clause 4.
I think that that briefly but adequately covers all the points raised in Committee. The Bill has been non-contentious throughout. Hon. Members on both sides have been most co-operative and understanding.
I think that all recognise that the Corporation's work is of great importance to our industry. It makes a valuable

contribution to that advancement of technology on which our future as an economically strong nation depends. The Corporation has been well served by its members and its staff, and they deserve our thanks. In the future when the Bill before us has passed into law, the Corporation will be able to make an even greater contribution to our national prosperity. I hope that in giving the Bill its Third Reading the House will join me in wishing the Corporation every success in the future.

8.54 p.m.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: I would first tell the hon. Gentleman that I think we would all sympathise with his right hon. Friend in having been laid low. Some of us felt that he was not quite on the best of form yesterday at Question Time. We certainly wish the Minister a very quick recovery.
The hon. Member may not know that my name was also attached to the Amendments which were considered in Committee, although, for other reasons, I could not be a member of the Standing Committee. However, in associating myself with those Amendments, I certainly shared the view of my hon. Friends who spoke on them in Committee that what we wanted to find out was what the Minister's intentions were. We believed that they would be in accordance with what we had intended to do had the Conservative Party been returned to power. I think that the hon. Gentleman realises that the Bill is by no means the sole creation of the present Government. In fact, it is the brain child of the previous Government. This was indicated very clearly in the last Annual Report of the N.R.D.C. Certainly, as I indicated on Second Reading, I fully support the general principle of the Bill.
However, perhaps the Minister of State could give me information that I sought on Second Reading but which could not be given to me at the time. I would like to know who the two additional members of the N.R.D.C. are to be and in what capacity they will be brought in. What specialised knowledge is thought desirable to add to that of the very distinguished men who have served and are serving the N.R.D.C.?
I take this opportunity to thank the Minister, in his absence, for a letter that he sent after Second Reading about hon.


Members in their various party capacities being able to meet those who carry out Government research. I recognise, of course, that the right hon. Gentleman's scope here is limited, but I would say at once that I very much welcome his response in so far as he has responsibility. I only hope that other Ministers will follow his example and stand up more toughly to the Treasury, which consistently over the years has tried to prevent hon. Members doing this sort of thing, especially where civil servants are involved.
Science and technology are so utterly divorced from party politics—or should be—that the important issue is that hon. Members should be able to get at those who can give the best first-hand information that is available, regardless of whether those giving it are civil servants or not. To apply Departmental rules in such cases is absurd and to the disadvantage of Parliament and people. We all wish to be as well informed as possible on various subjects and every time we have to go through a third or fourth or even a fifth party the information tends to be less comprehensible than one would wish.
As the Minister of State has said, a great deal of the debate upstairs turned on Clause 2(7), concerning the Annual Report. I want to illustrate one of my anxieties. In the last Annual Report of the N.R.D.C. there is mention on page 19 of a new project, a granular separator. A firm in my constituency, Fairleede Engineering Limited, of the town of Chatteris, has carried out this work. The paragraph in the Report mentioning the project is typical. It says:
The Corporation, in collaboration with Fairleede Engineering Ltd., is supporting the development of a half-sized shaking table of improved performance for the processing of ores. The table has been constructed and is undergoing preliminary trials at the Warren Spring Laboratory of D.S.I.R., from where the original inventions involved arose.
That is all we are told about this project and that is typical of the reports on various projects by the Corporation. There is no mention of the finance involved or how long it is intended the project shall take and whether, having been examined at the Warren Spring Laboratory, it will be paid for or not by the Corporation.
If we are to carry on such work and if the undertakings given in Committee and tonight are to be properly fulfilled, we must have some statement about how the reports on new projects are to vary. I accept that, where commercial risks and, still more, risks possibly involving State security are concerned, obviously the reports must to some extent be restricted. But we are entitled, representing our constituents, to know whether the N.R.D.C. is spending money in our constituencies and to what end, the sort of amount likely to be involved and how long the work is likely to last, and so on. Such things greatly concern our constituents.
I hope that when the Minister discusses the matter of the annual report with the N.R.D.C. he will again consider what financial information could reasonably be expected to be made available and which it would do nothing but good to have publicly aired in connection with each project.
Reading through the details of these many projects, some new, some continuing, some old and some abandoned, it is practically impossible in any financial sense to measure what is involved for the public purse. The spirit with which the right hon. Gentleman answered the various debates on Amendments in the Standing Committee showed that he had some sympathy with this point of view. Without in any way undermining the self-confidence which is essential to N.R.D.C., I hope that nevertheless it will be possible to provide hon. Members with more information than they have had in the past.
A considerable amount of money is involved. Even going through the report is deceptive, because the project which I have mentioned, for example, has been passed back to Warren Spring which has hitherto been covered by the D.S.I.R. annual report which comes out at a completely different date from that of the N.R.D.C.
Another suggestion which the hon. Gentleman might pass on to his right hon. Friend is that now that we have the Ministry of Technology and D.S.I.R. has been broken up, the N.R.D.C. annual report might incorporate details of all those activities hitherto covered by D.S.I.R. We would then get a much more complete picture of each project


from start to finish. As it is, the N.R.D.C. report tends to cover only part of a project. I would like the process to be complete so that we could assess each project far more fully than is now possible. Even delving into all reports which have been published in the past it is not possible to get a complete picture, but if the N.R.D.C. report were presented as I have suggested, these faults would be avoided.
The N.R.D.C. report mentions a joint development committee of N.R.D.C. and D.S.I.R. This appears in part 4, on page 9 of the report, under the heading, "The year's work". That committee was set up in 1958 to examine development problems of common interest and to advise D.S.I.R. and the N.R.D.C. on ways in which proposals for particular development contracts should be handled. Presurnably, that committee will now have to be considerably altered, if continued at all. At the end of the last annual report of N.R.D.C. we are told that the committee is continuing its work and dealing with more than 25 potential development projects. I do not know what the new set up is to be. Is there to be a sort of gleaning of the people in D.S.I.R. linking them up with N.R.D.C. so that the work can continue? It would not be a bad thing if there were some continuity to ensure that a committee which had done useful work could continue to do more useful work, and it would be a pity if the work were interrupted merely because the Ministry of Technology had been created.
I hope that I shall get some answers to these points. If the Minister of State to the Board of Trade, who has had to take the debate at short notice, cannot answer them all tonight, perhaps correspondence can take place after the debate. In general, I welcome the Bill very much. I feel sure that the appointment to the Atomic Energy Authority of Mr. Duckworth will greatly enhance the immense enthusiasm and strength which he has brought to the N.R.D.C.

9.5 p.m.

Mr. John H. Osborn: It is customary for an hon. Member, on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box, to crave the indulgence of the House. I am quite sure that the

Minister of Technology would have been sympathetic in this matter as he is new to the House. We regret that he is ill and is indisposed. My hon. Friends and I wish him a speedy recovery.
I hope that it is not out of order to mention that by coincidence the last time that I was in this position was at 8 o'clock one morning in July last year when Conservative Members were the only people in the Chamber. The hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) came across the Bar of the House and discovered that I had taken the position that I recently occupied—I was not addressing the House—and with very little difficulty he persuaded me to leave. I little realised that the next time I would be here—on the Opposition Front Bench—I would find the hon. Member for Barnsley—now Minister of State at the Board of Trade—opposite me and that we should be debating an important but, fortunately, non-controversial Bill.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) and my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) have asked me to express their regrets that they are unable to be here tonight. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey has pointed out that the Bill resulted from a statement last July by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath), who was then in the Government, which my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) mentioned. This statement referred to the last Report of the N.R.D.C. in which it was said:
It is significant that a need for expansion of the Corporation's activities appears to be generally acceptable and politically uncontroversial.
On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey said that we on this side
shall give a blessing to this Bill and see that its provisions are put into effect in an efficient and speedy way."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th Feb., 1965; Vol. 706, c. 1411.]
I believe that that promise has been implemented.
Certain points were stressed on Second Reading and in Standing Committee. The first concerned public relations. Not enough people in industry are aware of the N.R.D.C. or of the work which it does. During the Second Reading debate the need to give ore publicity to the


Corporation and its work was stressed. This problem is not new. It has faced most of the research associations. What steps is the Corporation taking to publicise the fact that it will have more funds at its disposal when the Bill becomes an Act?
Secondly, suggestions were made on Second Reading that use should be made of media such as television to publicise the work done by the Corporation. Has any progress been made here? The Hovercraft is but one example of publicity which could enhance the work of the Corporation.
Thirdly, my hon. Friend the Member for Horncastle (Sir J. Maitland) raised the question of the Institute of Patentees and Inventors. What contact has been made with the Institute? Can the facilities of the Corporation be harnessed to help the small inventor?
On Second Reading tribute was paid to the work of Mr. Duckworth in the Corporation, and I should like to add my tribute.
My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely referred to correspondence which has made it possible for us to make contact with the civil servants. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey, my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry and others of my hon. Friends have asked me to thank the Minister for the arrangements which he made for us after Second Reading to visit the N.R.D.C. and to take up the various issues that were raised on Second Reading. We had frank discussions with Mr. Duckworth, Mr. Hennessey and other members of the N.R.D.C. and we believe that the suggestions that were raised from this side of the House were welcomed by them. We are convinced that the measures in the Bill, when implemented, will help the N.R.D.C. to be much more effective.
On Second Reading, however, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey referred to the need, which my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely has emphasised, for a more complete and adequate annual report now that funds of£25 million are available to the N.R.D.C. In Standing Committee, the Minister stressed the need for continuity. We welcome the assurances that future reports will not allow projects to dis-

appear. I endorse the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely about the granular separator.
In Standing Committee, we had considerable debate on Clauses 2 and 3, the relief of interest and the question of writing off. We on this side prepared Amendments in support of our view that it would be reasonable to know when applications were being made to use the powers in those two Clauses, but the Minister emphasised that applications were a matter between himself and the N.R.D.C. and we on this side ultimately conceded the point. On the other hand, we in this House must know when the relief which is applied for has been granted and we welcome the assurances that this will be clearly stated in the annual report.
In the Standing Committee debate on Clause 4, I stressed the need for a clear distinction between, firstly, projects undertaken by the N.R.D.C. and the public sector; secondly, projects undertaken by the N.R.D.C. and the private sector, and thirdly, part hybrid or joint projects concerning all three. We had assurances in Standing Committee that this would be looked into and I shall welcome any further comments that the Minister of State can make.
It is essential that if the N.R.D.C. is to increase its activities, a fact which we on this side would certainly welcome, and has more money to spend, both this House and the public—the taxpayer—should have detailed accounts of how the money is being utilised. The assurance which we have been given and any further comment which may be forthcoming from the Minister should underline that the debates in this House have had the result of going a long way towards meeting these points.
It remains for me to congratulate the Minister of Technology on piloting his first Bill through the House. It has been a non-controversial Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely reminded us, it is as much a Conservative Measure as one from the present Government. We regret that the Minister of Technology has not been here to finish off the job in the House of Commons. When implemented, however, the Bill will guarantee that new ideas can be tried out and developed to


a much greater extent than hitherto. It will be another means of harnessing technology to industry and ultimately raising the standard of living of our people.
We on this side gladly give the Bill its Third reading.

9.14 p.m.

Mr. Mason: I should like first to rectify what seemed to me to be a mistake on the part of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn), that the Bill was the brainchild of the Conservative Party. The hon. Member should know that a Development of Inventions Bill first came to the House in 1948, that the Act which it became was assisted and pushed forward a little by the Conservative Administration in 1954 and that it has now been strengthened by the present Administration, embodying a great deal of what the previous Administration had in mind prior to leaving office.
I was touched by the kind remarks of the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) and the hon. Member for Hallam. I appreciated their praise of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology for his uprightness and his stand against the Treasury, their wishes for his good health and thanks for facilitating the visit of hon. Members opposite to the National Research and Development Corporation. No doubt my right hon. Friend will be pleased to read these comments in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely referred to the question of extra members of the Board. It is suggested in the: Bill that two extra members should be allowed if necessary. It is understandable that an expansion in the work of the Corporation should call for provision to be made for extra members. I am sorry to say that it is not yet possible to announce who will go on to the Board, mainly because the Chairman would in any case have to wait until this Bill becomes an Act, so no decision can yet be taken on that matter. As I said in my first speech, regarding the annual report there will be more continuity and an attempt made to give more information and a clearer picture of the activities of the Corporation. The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely made an interesting point about D.S.I.R. and

N.R.D.C., which I will draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend, together with the extent to which in the next annual report, there may be mention of where the activities of the two organisations might be married.
I must congratulate the hon. Member for Hallam on making his first appearance at the Dispatch Box. It is rather a pleasing duty when the matter under discussion is not contentious. The hon. Member referred to small inventors and mentioned the Institute of Patentees and Inventors. It has been pressing the Government for more support for some time and, this was referred to during the Second Reading debate. Since then my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology has met a delegation from the Institute which, I think, included the hon. Member for Horncastle (Sir J. Maitland). I understand that, following that meeting, my right hon. Friend has advised the Institute to meet the N.R.D.C. and that a meeting will take place soon. I can inform the House that the Corporation has already appointed extra staff to deal exclusively with submissions from small inventors. If the Corporation does not propose to take up any invention, it will give assistance and advice so far as is possible. I am pleased to say that because of the representations which have been made by the Institute of Patentees and Inventors the Corporation is preparing an informative booklet designed to help private inventors.
On the question of publicity the Corporation has appointed a public relations officer and is examining the whole question of publicity, including publicity on television and the wider circulation of the N.R.D.C. Bulletin. I think that I have covered the points which were raised during this debate. If I have missed any, no doubt my right hon. Friend will write to the hon. Gentleman, as he so sensibly suggested.
The history of the Corporation has now gone through two phases and we are entering a very important third phase by this Bill. Originally, the aims were to secure the development and exploitation of inventions where required in the public interest. In the second phase there was added to its responsibilities research which was likely to produce inventions and an increase from£5 million to£10 million was made in the moneys allowed.
We are are now witnessing the gradual enactment of the third phase, which involves first of all the transfer of functions to the Minister of Technology; second, an increase of moneys still further from£10 million to£25 million, third, the complete removal to the time limit placed on its operations; fourth, the new power of the Minister of Technology to write off certain losses, this being in recognition of the Corporation's speculative type of work, and fifth, the provision in the Bill whereby Government Departments, as well as the Ministry of Technology, will have direct links with the Corporation in financing research and development which is designed to lead to inventions.
In all, this is a very encouraging growth of a public Corporation, unanimously backed by all parties in the House. No doubt we will all watch its future growth and its successes with the same unanimous appreciation.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

WATER RESOURCES (LICENCES) REGULATIONS

9.22 p.m.

Mr. John M. Temple: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Water Resources (Licences) Regulations, 1965 (S.I. 1965, No. 534), dated 19th March, 1965, a copy of which was laid before this House on 31st March, be annulled.
These Regulations are extraordinarily complicated. Everyone is agreed on that, if not upon everything else in them. They are a vital part of the mechanism of the water supplies of England and Wales and follow upon the principle Statute, the Water Resources Act, 1963. I feel that the House and the country are entitled to some explanations of these Regulations. We must recognise that there is a considerable degree of urgency about these Regulations, because the persons and organisations who are entitled to licences of right have to have their applications in at the latest by 30th June of this year.
Recognising this fact, I believe that one of the matters of importance is the publicity which is given to the Regulations. I have the good fortune to read the farming Press pretty regularly, and I am glad to say that in the farming Press recently considerable publicity has been given to the subject of our future water supplies. In the Farmer and Stock-breeder on the 13th of this month there was a headline, "Now we need a water licence". I think that the farming community have therefore already been alerted to the fact that licences to abstract water will be required throughout England and Wales for all abstractive purposes. In the same issue, the Farmer and Stock-breeder gave details of an irrigation scheme covering about 700 acres on the Trumpington Estate in Cambridgeshire and described it as one of the most extensive and efficient irrigating systems in England. It is only one of the extensive and efficient irrigating systems in England at present, and it may be one of many in the comparatively near future.
The Farmers Weekly also referred to this matter in its issue of 16th April, in which there was a headline, "NFU chief calls for clamp on water waste". I think I have made my point, that in the farming Press at least there has been considerable


publicity for the fact that water is important, that we must conserve it and that every abstractor will require a water licence. That is what these Regulations are about.
I would ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary whether he would give encouragement to river authorities to give the maximum publicity in the local Press to these licensing regulations.
I have spoken to people who are closely connected with river authorities, and I know Out they are wondering, if an application is put in out of time for a licence of right, whether they should accede to that request or whether they will be unable to deal with an application for a licence of right which has come in after 30th June. We should be very clear on this point, because, as I read the Regulations, if an application is made after 30th June, the river authority will have to deal with it as an ordinary application and not as an application for a licence of right.
River authorities are comparatively new organisations in this form. They have recently taken over from river boards, and they have vastly increased functions and responsibilities. At the present time, and certainly up to 30th June, they will be inundated with applications for licences of right, and these licences of right have to be dealt with by 31st December of this year. This means that during the period when river authorities are dealing with these licences they will be unable to deal with any new applications for the abstraction and impounding of water.
I have had it put to me by the National Farmers' Union that a great number of new schemes are being held up at present just because river authorities have laid upon them the duty of dealing in the first place with licences of right. I think that I am correct in saying that at present the Ministry of Agriculture will not give any grants-in-aid to new schemes just because they cannot guarantee that these schemes will obtain a licence to abstract. Therefore there is a considerable hold-up of all new schemes, and I shall be asking the hon. Member the Parliamentary Secretary whether he can indicate the time-table within which these applications will be dealt with.
I believe that the question of the timetable is of considerable importance in more than one respect. It is appreciated by the House that licences of right have to be dealt with first, but until ordinary licences are being issued there can be no contribution whatever from the charging schemes which are designed to pay for all the water conservation schemes throughout the country. This means that until such time as the ordinary licences have been issued, only a provisional charging scheme can be in operation, and until that provisional charging scheme is turned into a full charging scheme, the cost of water conservation falls upon the local authority concerned and is therefore a considerable burden upon the ratepayers of this country.
I should like the Government to indicate the time-scale which they expect for the issuance not only of licences of right under the Regulations but of ordinary licences, in order that some guidance can be given as to when local authorities will be relieved of the cost of water conservation and the water conservation will fall, quite rightly, on the charging schemes which are operative under these particular licences. I have spoken to river authorities about this matter, and I have had it indicated to me that river authorities will not be able to issue ordinary licences until minimum acceptable flows have been laid down.
The Parliamentary Secretary did not have the good fortune of sitting on all the stages of the principal legislation. It was his misfortune. It was my good fortune to speak at every stage of the Water Resources Bill, and hon. Members who took part at every stage became familiar with the technical terms used in the Regulations.
The minimum acceptable flow was recognised as the basis for river regulations throughout the country. Does the Joint Parliamentary Secretary consider that river authorities will be able to proceed with the issuance of ordinary licences to abstract, in advance of minimum acceptable flows being laid down for any particular river? I stress the importance of the time table under which the Regulations operate.
I turn to some matters of rather more detail. It is significant that every model licence form in the First Schedule refers


to "inland water". We should be clear at this early stage—although I will have some searching questions to ask later about the phrase "inland water"; indeed, that is why I am making this point now—exactly what is embraced within the term "inland water". As I understand it, it covers rivers, streams and lakes, underground water—and now we come to the main difficulty—it also embraces estuarial waters and parts of the sea.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Commander Pursey) and myself were very exercised about the area of a river authority. Due to pressure from that hon. Gentleman and myself, at a very late stage—in fact, at the last stage—when the Water Resources Bill, was proceeding, a second, very long Schedule was included entitled "Seaward boundaries of river authority areas". Under those seaward boundaries the area of a river authority is defined. I will return to this point because it is of great importance in terms of the definition of "inland water", particularly since all of these Regulations refer to the control regulations which will be operative within the inland waters of this country.
The main object of the Regulations is to obtain information in the right form so that river authorities will be able to issue licences to extract even before minimum acceptable flows are determined. I congratulate the Government on the consultations which they have had with most of the interested bodies. The only criticism I have heard about the consultations is that the second draft of these extraordinarily lengthy and complex Regulations were received only a day or two before comments on them were demanded by the Association of River Authorities. I have been asked to make it clear that, to a large extent, the Government have met the points which were put to them on the draft Regulations. There are, however, certain points still outstanding on the draft Regulations, and I am moving this Motion to clear them up.
Concerning Model Forms 1 and 5, which applicants for licences to abstract will have to fill in, it has been put to me that these forms are applicable equally to all normal applicants and to spray irrigators and statutory water undertakers. I think it is recognised that the

problems concerning spray irrigators and statutory water undertakers are almost in a class by themselves.
They are very much more complex and difficult problems than those with which the normal applicant will be faced. I would ask the Government whether it will be possible under these Regulations, and under Model Forms 1 and 5 to which I have referred, for normal applicants to fill up a good deal less of the data which is required from the spray irrigators and the statutory water undertakers, who are recognised as being the most difficult cases. I know that the river authorities would be happy themselves with something rather less complicated, and perhaps we may have an indication that the Government may acquiesce in an application form rather less complicated than Model Forms 1 and 5.
Model Form 5 refers to applicants for licences of right under the Regulations. Most licences of right which are referred to in Section 33 of the principal Statute are for applicants who have been using the same source of supply over the preceding five years; that is, the years preceding 1st April, 1965. The small Table 2 in paragraph 8, page 40, of Model Form 5, asks for details of the machinery which the abstractor has been using. What I think is more desirable than the details of the machinery—or, perhaps, ancillary to those details—is the date on which that machine was installed. It will possibly be within the credence of the House that people who are at present installing machinery may not have had it in operation for very long, and may be seeking to obtain a licence of right to which they would not be entitled. I therefore hope that, in addition to the details of the machinery, the date of the installation of the machinery will be given to the river authority concerned.
There is another point concerning discharges of water after use. The House will probably appreciate that the river authorities will base their charging schemes on the net amount of water used; that is, the amount of water abstracted less the amount of water finally returned to any particular river or stream. Very significantly, in Model Form 1, which is referred to in the Regulations and which will be applicable to all new applicants for licences to abstract water, applicants are asked in


page 20 to give the approximate proportion of water that is likely to be discharged after use.
The river authority will therefore know the net amount of water which any individual user is applying to use, but in Model Form 5, which is applicable to applicants for licences of right, there is no mention whatsoever of discharge of water. This is an omission. I think that Model Forms 1 and 5 should be identical in this respect, and I should like to be told the reason for this difference in two forms of application which are, in fact, to be used for the same purpose of basing charges for water by any river authority.
The House will appreciate that one of the ways in which we can augment our water supplies in future will be by the recharging of our underground aquifers. Very significantly, there is a model form dealing with applications for licences for abstracting water from underground. Naturally it will be a requirement of the Water Resources Board, in order that it can build up a water balance-sheet for the whole country, that it shall know the water level appertaining to the underground aquifers. It has been put to me—and I know this is of concern very much to the Thames Conservancy—as to why Model Forms 2 and 5, particularly in paragraph 5 of Model Form 5 do not require the abstractor to give the level at which water is first struck in the underground aquifer. The only information required is the level from which the water is abstracted.
To put it in a different way, the abstractor will have to give only the level, say 100 or 200 feet, below the level of the water at which the aquifer has been struck. In order that the Water Resources Board can build up an account of the levels throughout the country and know about the underground aquifers it should have a complete picture of the underground pattern of water supplies or it will he handicapped in furthering the recharging of the underground aquifers.
Another matter is the information required to be given by an applicant for a licence to abstract. I draw attention to what I believe should be termed the priorities which will have to be used by river authorities when curtailing the amount of water which can be abstracted

by any user of water. It would be pleasant to feel that at all times there was plenty of water for all users, but I am afraid that that is not the case. River authorities under these licensing regulations will at times have to restrict the use of water by respective licensees. At that stage the river authorities will have to rely on information obtained from the applicant under the licences which are part of the regulations. That will be the only information the river authorities will have.
On page 22 the river authority is given a description of the information to which it is entitled. The purposes are described in sub-paragraph (j). The two purposes to which I refer particularly are "spray irrigation" and
use in a process of manufacture (other than for cooling purposes)".
This point has been put to me by the Association of River Authorities. The Association is very much concerned about getting sufficient information in order that when applicants apply for licences there can be a judgment of the importance of certain applications against that of others. The Association believes that in the case of spray irrigation it should have knowledge as to whether the spray irrigation is to be for grassland, for arable land, or horticulture. If the spray irrigation were to be used for grassland and that irrigation was cut off for a time the grassland would suffer, but it would not be killed altogether. If the spray irrigation were for horticulture and it were cut off for a small period from a horticultural crop, the crop would perish and wither and would be of no use. This is a comparatively important point.
It is possibly even more important with regard to the second matter I mentioned, use in a process of manufacture. River authorities will be set the difficult task of deciding the priorities amongst the various applicants for supplies of water. They will have to know, not only that it is a process of manufacture, but whether it is for the chemical industry, whether it is for the paper-making industry, or whether it is for the mineral water industry. If it were, say, for the chemical industry, it would not require such a high quality of water as would be required for a mineral water undertaking. Again, there may well be certain processes which


would be carried on by a dry process and would not require water as a major priority in a dry spell. Those processes of manufacture could indeed carry on with a very much smaller water supply.
My point is that priorities will be increasingly important and as the only information which the river authority will have is that contained in the application form for a licence that licence must be as full and as detailed as possible.
I turn to the form of the licence itself. Regulations 17, 18 and 19 refer to a register of applications and licences the revocation or variation of licences and fishing rights. When one turns to try to discover what a licence to abstract means, the matter is not carried very much further by the interpretation Regulation, which says:
'licence to abstract' means a licence under the Act to abstract water".
That does not carry us very much further.
I have had the opportunity of having once again a consultation with a man whom I regard as one of the foremost authorities on water conservation and river regulation in the whole country, who was till very recently Chief Executive and Clerk of the old Dee and Clwyd River Board, Captain Gerald Wright. He told me that he thought that the most important thing in these Regulations was the licence to abstract. Therefore, it seems strange to me, having studied these Regulations carefully, that, although we have model application forms of all kinds and descriptions, there is no model licence form whatsoever contained in the Regulations.
This is a matter of very great importance, because all the Regulations to which I have referred—17, 18 and 19—depend on information contained in the licence. Unless there is reasonable uniformity between the information contained in the various licences, set out having regard to a model form, I think that river authorities and anyone serving notices referred to in the Regulations will be in difficulties, and there will be an especial difficulty wth regard to the transfer of water between one river authority and another. I very much hope that the Government will be able to say something tonight on a form of model licence,

because I know that it is a matter which will have to be dealt with by river authorities in the very near future.
It would appear from these Regulations that all abstracters and impounders of water will have to have a licence. The National Farmers' Union has drawn my attention to Section 25(1) of the principal legislation—the 1963 Act—under which river authorities may apply to the Minister to exempt certain areas from licensing. This is where I come to what I referred to initially as one of the very difficult parts of the Regulations. That is the definition of "inland water" which is contained in every model licence form and in effect takes in part of the sea and estuarial waters along with what one would normally term the inland waters of this country. It seems, if I have read these Regulations and the model forms correctly, that indeed the areas of the river authorities will take in, in the case of the Mersey River Authority, all the dock and harbour area of Liverpool and Birkenhead; in the case of the Humber Estuary, all the docks—

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl) indicated dissent.

Mr. Temple: The Joint Parliamentary Secretary shakes his head, but I have great experience of Schedule 2 and the seaward boundaries of river authorities, and I know that I am correct in my contention. I contend that the area of a river authority will contain these areas of the dock and harbour authorities. In that case, the dock and harbour authorities will have to seek a licence in order that they can impound the sea water in the docks of their own particular dock complex because that will be within the area of a river authority.
I ask the Minister, therefore, whether he has had any proposals from the river authorities for Section 25(1) orders to exempt dock and harbour authorities from seeking licences, in order to conserve waters within the dock areas of their particular organisations. I can hardly conceive that it would be the Government's intention to make these organisations subject to this licensing procedure because the main object of the licensing procedure is to enable river


authorities to bring in a charging scheme, and there could be no cost attributable to river authorities for the conservation of sea water. If that is a fact, perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary could give us some advice about his Section 25(1) intentions and state whether all abstracters and impounders within the area of a river authority will have to apply for a licence, whether that licence is applicable to fresh water, estuarial water or sea water.
Now I come to two points on the Regulations, as opposed to points on the licence application forms. In Regulation 11 for the first time we come across a reference to a "multiple licence of right". There is no definition, either in the principal Statute or in the interpretation Regulation, of a multiple licence of right. It is a new terminology which has appeared in these Regulations and I suppose is another term of art in what I call the water world, but I think we are entitled to have an explanation of exactly what is meant by a "multiple licence of right" because it is not referred to in the interpretation Regulation.
The other point on the Regulations to which I should like to refer is the very substantial addition to the law which is being made by these Regulations. I think all of us who participated in all stages of the 1963 Act realised that there would be a good deal of extension of the law by regulation. In these Regulations there is a very great extension of the law. Regulations 11, 13, 14 and 15 extend some 11 Sections of the Principal Act. I know that this will not be the last set of Regulations which will be brought before this House under the Water Resources Act, 1963. I should like the Government to consider bringing in consolidating legislation in order that these new extensions to the law could be consolidated.
I appreciate that the matters with which I have been endeavouring to deal under these Regulations are detailed and complex. Therefore, I am particularly glad to have sitting alongside me my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) because he was paid a very well-earned tribute by "Cross Bencher" on Sunday of this week. Cross Bencher described him as
A master at dealing with complex issues with skill and precision".

If my hon. Friend has the good fortune to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, I know that he will deal with these complex matters with more skill and precision than I have been able to bring to bear upon them.
I am grateful for the opportunity on behalf of the Opposition of bringing this Motion before the House, because we recognise that the proper control of the nation's water supplies is extremely important. I hope that the Government will have some satisfactory explanations of the various points which I have put before the House.

9.56 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): The hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) told us that he had spent many months immersed in water. If I say that his speech showed some signs of that I hope that he will take it as a compliment rather than as having any other implication. The hon. Member has gone through the details of these extremely complicated Regulations with great thoroughness and I will do my best to try and deal with the points raised. If I miss any or get them wrong I will certainly write to him and clear them up.
The first point was about publicity. The hon. Member very rightly said that those people who are members of associations, either water consumers or water undertakers, who are concerned with these matters will receive the usual competent and good advice, publicity and information from their organisations which are always provided for them. The main problem is that of the odd men out, the independent small men. We are very much concerned about the importance of bringing this procedure to their notice. We are paying some attention to getting short advertisements repeated in newspapers. We are paying particular attention to local newspapers in areas where there is much private extraction from underground, such as in East Anglia. We hope to do this during the next two months.
Leaflets are also under preparation for free distribution, especially in farming areas. We have written to the river authorities on a number of matters, an


the first matter mentioned in a circular letter of 31st March is:
River authorities will no doubt take such opportunities as present themselves locally to fill in and supplement this general publicity. They can usefully take steps to make known the address to which inquiries, including applications for licence forms, should be sent.
We are doing what we can in co-operation with the river authorities to see that the importance of these new Regulations is drawn to the attention of the people who have to make them effective.
The hon. Member asked what would happen if a licence of right was out of time. He asked whether there was any discretion to give a licence after the expiry of the date of 30th June. The answer is "No". A licence of right is a privilege, and it must be claimed by the prescribed date.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the time table. I can give him a rough indication of how it is likely to work. Applications for licences of right, as we have said, must be in by 30th June. As regards these licences, if they are applied for up to 30th June, there will be a wait of up to three months from that date. In the case of new licences applied for after 1st July, there can be a wait of three months from the date of application. This is rather like planning approvals. If it is agreed to extend the period, then it can be extended. If no decision is given, the applicant has the right of appeal to my right hon. Friend.
The licence charges will not have to wait until ascertainment of the minimum acceptable flow. It will be possible and necessary for the river boards to go ahead before they have that information in order not to hold things up, as the hon. Gentleman suggested. I suppose that there is some risk involved if they do not obtain estimates, but we consider that this is a risk worth taking. There may have to be public inquiries in respect of some charging schemes, but it is expected that they will be approved and in operation by 1969.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the possibility of having a simplified form of application. The difficulty here is that we cannot start changing our minds—to use an appropriate metaphor—in midstream. We have started with these forms and we must, for the present, carry on with them. Forms in respect of the licence of right will be finished with very

quickly now, in only a few months, and, therefore, nothing much can be done about those. The forms in respect of the other licences will, of course, continue to be used indefinitely, and we shall watch what happens with some care, noting any criticisms which are made with a view to altering them at some time, if necessary. At the moment, we do not want to cause any delay by interfering with them.
The next point of which I have a note relates to dates of installation of machinery and rates of discharge from pumps. As regards applications for licences of right, we shall know from the forms the date of the abstracting and, therefore, it is not quite right to say that we shall have no idea of the sort of historical background, whether it is new machinery, how long it has been there, and so on. We shall have information—this is on page 41 of the Regulations—about the date of the abstraction.
The short point is that, in the case of the licence of right, there is not really a discretion. The licence must be given and, therefore, we do not want to put an undue burden on the applicant. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was trying to run two horses at the same time on this because he was emphasising the complication of the whole operation and the difficulties and obscurities of the form while at the same time asking for more information to be put in it. We do not want unnecessarily to burden the licence of right applicants, that is, the people who have been using these services. Naturally, the tendency will be for people to be a bit irritated if they are asked for information to defend something which they have been doing for some time. We want to keep things down to the minimum, making it possible for river boards to do their two main jobs, to estimate the demand for water which they must meet and to deal with the problem of the charges.
Water discharge is not relevant in the case of the licence of right. On the other hand, in the case of the level of water in underground aquifers, it is true that the licensee of right would know probably from his experience but the new licensee would not know because he would not yet have started and would not have any information. It is true


that the existing abstractor will not have to supply the information, but if necessary it can be obtained. The river authority has power under the Act to obtain information, and it can inspect records if necessary.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about the priorities as between users. This rather surprised me. He is a master of the Act, having spent so long on it in Committee, hut his impressions of what it meant to do differ from mine. As I understood the spirit of the Act, it was that the river authorities were there to supply water to meet the needs, and they were expected to supply water, and unless trey had very good reason for not supplying water, they could be subject to civil action. They are not rationing bodies. It is not the philosophy behind the Act that they should be exercising judgments as between the comparative merits of different forms of agriculture or industry. They are providing the service. The two big exceptions to that, because of their complications, are the statutory water undertakers and the people who use spray irrigation, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. They are dealt with separately.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about a model licence. I am advised that there is no proposal to introduce a model licence. What has to go in the licence is laid down in Section 30 of the Act. Because of the variety of individual cases which arise, it would be very difficult to have a standardised model form. As there are so many variations, it is thought better to leave it to the discretion of the licensing authority.
Another subject raised by the hon. Gentleman was estuarial waters. If I am wrong about this I will apologise and write to him. It is perfectly true that some estuarial waters are within the areas of river authorities. However, when the hon. Gentleman started talking about the Mersey, a constituency penny dropped. I thought—I may be wrong—that the area ended at the Runcorn Bridge, an old and familiar landmark of mine, and, therefore, that the Mersey Docks do not come within it. If that is wrong, I will withdraw it and apologise.
The Water Resources Board is writing today to some river authorities in areas where ground water is a minor resource

of only local significance, where exemption from control is likely to be justified, but they are mostly cases where there is hard, impervious rock. In general, the responsibility rests with the river authority to decide how it is to exercise its powers under Section 25 to exclude. It is a matter for the authority. No doubt it will be considering the matter. As far as I am aware, we have not had any approaches on the matter. It is primarily a matter for them and they have a good deal to do because they have only got going very recently.
The multiple licence of right is defined in Regulation 11(1). As I understand it, one may have a number of separate points of abstraction which are sharing a common source and, therefore, although each of these points of abstraction has an amount of water that can be taken, one cannot simply multiply that by a certain number and say that this is the total amount for which one will give a licence because these points are mutually interrelated by drawing from a common source. If one drew all the water from one point one would reduce the others. One must take them together and give a multiple licence covering all points of abstraction which are mutually related in this way.
Those are the main points raised by the hon. Gentleman. I will not take up time by making many general remarks about the Regulations. They are vital and important to the operation of getting the Act, the river authorities and the licensing system going, which we all want to do as swiftly as we can. It is true that the timetable under which we have had to operate has been rapid. It is significant that the new river authorities came into operation on 15th October, 1964. One doubts whether historians will regard that as the greatest event on 15th October, 1964. There may have been other events of greater importance.
At any rate, the authorities have had this short period in which to get organised. We have had to do our best to get these complicated Regulations out. We have done our best, as the hon. Gentleman said, to consult all those concerned. We have been racing against time, since the longer one takes in consultation the greater the danger that one fails to produce in time the regulations


needed. We have been anxious to get them out in time and my right hon. Friend would like me to express his warm appreciation to the river authorities for the work they are undertaking. We hope that this system will get into comparatively smooth operation. It will be a big operation and it will, I am sure, be very successful.

10.13 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: My hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) gave the House the benefit of his great knowledge of the subject in his detailed examination of the Regulations and I congratulate the Joint Parliamentary Secretary on countering many of those points. The hon. Gentleman tiptoed through the queried Regulations very elegantly, stepping over such things as the minimum acceptable flow, which I suppose will become "miniflow" in due course. But, in doing so, he showed up some of the inadequacies of the Regulations.
Some of the points, of course, arise out of the Act itself. Application for a licence of right cannot be made except under initial right, so there can be nothing in these Regulations which gives anyone the right to bring such an application in out of time and the Regulations show up the fact that there will be a freeze-up of schemes for a period. That will be necessary to get a full picture, but it will cause some difficulties.
The real difficulties will come in the use of these forms and in trying to understand these complicated regulations. The Parliamentary Secretary rather dismissed the idea of amending any of the forms, or even considering any of them again for some time. He said that he did not want to interfere with them, but would watch to see how they worked out. However, my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester disclosed a great fault in the forms at one point. That was the purpose for the discharge of water in the case of a licence of right. Surely the river authorities have to judge the flow of water in their areas and will therefore want to know not only what water is being discharged, but of what type. They might wish it to be discharged into an already unclean area instead of a clean area if they knew the purpose for which

it was being discharged, and although they could not alter that purpose, because it was a licence of right, they ought to be given that information on the forms.
One thing which seems extraordinary about these Regulations is the absence of the model licence itself. The Parliamentary Secretary said that Section 30 of the Act set out what should go into the licence. However, the Act sets out what should go into the applications to a great extent, but there are forms of applications in the Regulations. I cannot agree that the regulations should not provide a model licence. The Minister should not leave this matter to the river authorities or we shall have various forms of licence issued by various river authorities, and confusion may arise out of that.
Looking at the Regulations as a whole; I think that they will tax the sleuthing ability of a Sherlock Holmes. Finding out what form should be used is a complicated matter, and anyone wanting to put in an application before the end of June will probably have to spend from now until the end of June to find out which application and which form he has to use, because there is no identification of the forms in the regulations.
This is quite unusual in Regulations of this sort. One usually looks at the index to find the title of the subject which one wants to look up and then finds in the Schedule the reference to the form to be used, and even on turning to the Schedule one finds a reference at the top of the form to the regulation to which the form applies.
For example, I recollect that at one end of my constituency there is a golf course which uses its own water supply, abstracts water and has been abstracting it for more than five years. It will be able to apply for a licence of right under Section 33(1,b). From the index to the Regulations, I would assume that Regulation 7 would be the one to which the club would refer an application for a licence of right. Turning to Regulation 7 to find out what form of application to use, one finds that it is absolutely silent about which form in the Schedule should be used for an application for a licence of right.
Incidentally, if the prospective applicant starts to read through Regulation 7 and gets as far as the seventh line he


will wonder what the printer has done with the bracket, because as it reads at the moment the line is unintelligible. The bracket is opened after the word "provision"—
other than an order made under the Water Act 1958(a)",
and there, I think, the bracket should finish; hut it goes on for another seven lines without the closing bracket appearing anywhere. Therefore, the whole thing is quite unintelligible. We could on this alone divide the House and ask the Minister to take back the Regulations and put the bracket in the right place. I hope that in future printing of the Regulations the Parliamentary Secretary will decide where the bracket ought to go—I will not say where to put it—and ensure that it is introduced in the right place.
Suppose that a prospective applicant, having decided that he would not bother about trying to understand Regulation 7(1), goes on to read more material stuff, he still will not get much assistance. He may have read earlier Regulation 4(3) which tells him that there are model forms in the Schedule. It says:
The particulars asked for in each of the model forms of application set out in Schedule I to these regulations are the particulars prescribed for inclusion in an application of the description to which that form relates, and any reference in this part of the regulations to the appropriate particulars in relation to al application shall be construed accordingly.
That will not help him at all. The Regulations operate in a circle. He may then refer to Regulation 5 which deals with applications for licences. It finishes by saying:
In this regulation the appropriate form', in relation to an application, means a form which asks for particulars which are the appropriate particulars as respects the application in question.
Some depth of wisdom is shown in that provision, but it does not carry the prospective applicant further towards the form. He would then have to turn to the Schedule and, after thumbing over 22 pages, he would find the title to a form which seems to fit the case.
This is not very much help to the type of applicant, a layman, who will be applying for licences of right—not every applicant will be a farmer who has read the farming Press—and he will have to find his way about the Regulations. They could have been made a lot simpler.
Again to use a local example, the docks are at the other end of my constituency. It is a serious point as to whether docks, such as the Liverpool Docks, come within the Regulations and will, in respect of existing docks, have to apply for a licence. Frankly, I do not know whether under the Act or these Regulations there is such a thing as a licence of right for impounding. Undoubtedly a dock impounds water. If there is a licence of right for impounding, the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board will have to try to find in these Regulations the right form in which to make its application for a licence of right to retain the Liverpool Docks and to make its application before the end of June.
There is on foot a great extension of these docks. I assume that the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board will have to apply for a licence to impound in regard to the£65 million dock extension scheme. Surely this is not the sort of thing which was expected by the Act or by the Regulations. My hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester asked for an assurance that there would be an order made under Section 25(1) exempting that type of body from complying with the Regulations and the Act which were obviously never intended to refer to such statutory bodies.

Mr. MacColl: The hon. Gentleman is rebuking me for not giving an assurance. He knows the Act much better than I do. My impression is that the appropriate authorities have to apply. How on earth can my right hon. Friend given an assurance about something which Parliament, under the guidance and sway of hon. Members opposite, specifically entrusted to the appropriate authorities?

Mr. Page: Yes, the authorities may apply to the Minister. Perhaps, however, an assurance could be given that the Minister would look kindly upon any such application and that the intention was to exempt authorities of that sort. This is one of those questions which I do not press upon the Joint Parliamentary Secretary at this stage, but I hope that we shall have an answer in some form in due course so that we know whether these large authorities are expected to come under the same sort of forms and regulations as the smaller user of water.
One other matter on which the Regulations leave us very much in the air concerns Regulation 12, which deals with appeals from a river authority. If a river authority has refused an application for a licence, the applicant may appeal to the Minister. Regulation 12 refers to the notice of appeal being in writing, and so on, and to a copy of the notice being forwarded to other interested people, but the Schedules provide no form of notice of appeal. It would have been helpful to everybody if the form were standardised. There will, of course, be different grounds of appeal, but one is used to that; in the form of notice of appeal, sufficient space is left to state the grounds. A standardised form of notice of appeal would, however, be appropriate.
The Regulations deal only with notice of appeal and they do not take the appeal any further by way of the question of preparation for and the hearing of an appeal. As the Joint Parliamentary Secretary knows, in many cases we are presented with a fairly elaborate order concerning the procedure on an appeal of this nature. I hope that we shall have further regulations setting out the intended method of preparation of an appeal and the procedure to take place upon appeal.
Again, I compliment the Joint Parliamentary Secretary on the answers which he has tonight given us. If I am pressing further questions upon him, it is not that I am not grateful to him for the answers which he has given and the way in which he dealt with the questions of my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester. I hope that if the hon. Gentleman does not tonight answer the questions which I have put, he will consider them and let us know at a later stage whether any of them can be met.
Obviously, the Regulations had to be brought forward now because there is pressure of time. Applications for the licences of right have to be made by the end of June. In many respects, however, the Regulations show a lack of full consideration and a lack in drafting which would help the layman to understand them. We can be certain that we shall

get more regulations under the Act and I therefore endorse the appeal of my hon. Friend when he asked for an assurance that the Regulations will eventually be consolidated. I hope that when they are consolidated, they will be made a little simpler for the layman to find his way about them.

10.29 p.m.

Mr. Temple: The House is obliged to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for his great care in replying to many of the rather difficult points which I put to him, and I am sure that the House is equally obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) for his great expertise in these detailed and intricate matters. I contgratulate him upon spotting the fault in the Regulations that a bracket is missing.
My hon. Friend has drawn attention to the fact that in the form in which they are presented, the Regulations are not only complex but difficult to follow. I hope that that point will not be lost upon the Department concerned so that we shall have not simpler Regulations but Regulations in a rather more comprehensible form brought before us on another occasion.
I raised several points, the first of which was very kindly dealt with by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. That was the point with regard to publicity. I am obliged to him for the reply which he gave on that. It will be tremendously helpful throughout the country, and I feel that the efforts which are being made by river authorities and the Department will ensure that very few applicants who are entitled to licences of right will miss their opportunities of making these applications. I was also pleased that the Parliamentary Secretary was able to give some indication as to when the charging schemes would be brought in. I think that 1969 is the target date and that it could well be adhered to. I hope that by that time the ratepayers will be relieved of the cost of paying for water conservation throughout England and Wales.
I was also obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary for his saying that he would watch the question of a more simplified form of application, but there were two points on which I should like to press him


further. One was in respect of model licences, a subject on which my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby gave me considerable support. I do not believe that there are insuperable obstacles to producing a model form of licence, if model forms of application in such detail are attached to these regulations. I know that the Association of River Authorities is at the moment considering a model form of licence which will be applicable throughout England and Wales in the areas of the members of the association. I would ask the Government to co-operate with the association, and I hope that a standard model form of licence could be adopted.
I mentioned at the end of my speech the difficult matter of the area of a river authority, and I went further than the Parliamentary Secretary did. He referred to estuarial waters; I referred to estuarial waters and parts of the sea. I would remind the Parliamentary Secretary of the interpretation Section in the principal Act, Section 135, which refers to inland water in subsection (1,c), and defines it as:
so much of any creek, channel, bay or arm of the sea as does not fall within the preceding paragraphs and is within any of the river authority areas.
I know that the intention is that all the area of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board will fall within the area of the Mersey River Authority. I give this only as one example in England and Wales. I think I am correct in saying that practically all the dock areas in England and Wales—with the exception of the area of the Port of London, which is

an excepted district and is the only area in the country which is not treated as a river authority—will come within the area of a river authority.
I remember very well that I found that the Government's advisers on the principal Act were at fault in the original drafting of the Act with regard to the seaward boundaries of river authorities. This was something which I pursued throughout discussion of the 1963 Act, in which I had the assistance of the hon. and gallant Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Commander Pursey). That gives me some confidence in feeling that I may be correct in what I have said with regard to the encompassing within the area of a river authority of the areas of docks and harbour authorities. If that is so, a dock and harbour authority will have to apply for a licence to the river authority to impound the water within a particular docks system. I am sure that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will look into this matter carefully, because if what I have described is the case then they should be treated as excepted districts.
With those two exceptions, I can say, on behalf of the Opposition, that we are satisfied with the explanations which have been given by the Government tonight. I wish the Regulations well and hope that they will be extremely effective in bringing about a sensible regulation of the water supplies of this country, for the benefit of all concerned.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

REGIONAL COUNCILS AND BOARDS (THE UNIVERSITIES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mrs. Harriet Slater.]

10.35 p.m.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I wish to make it clear at the outset that I regard the developments which have taken place in regional planning, particularly in the last few months, as being one of the most valuable aspects of planning policy in general in this country.
Regional planning is a very long way indeed from the day of distressed areas and development areas. It shows concern for the regions, not just because they are areas of heavy unemployment. It is a concern for the South-East and the Midlands equally as much as a concern for Scotland and Northern Ireland.
My interest in raising this topic tonight is not only to make some suggestions but also to sound the Department and the Minister as to the ideas which it and he have on the subject of the relationship between the universities and similar institutions and the regional boards and councils. I wish to make it clear that I do not believe that universities are regional universities only. All our universities serve students from all over the country. Nevertheless, I am convinced that the universities could do much to serve the regional areas in which they are situated.
This is recognised by the fact that the Chairman of the Yorkshire and Humberside Regional Council, Sir Roger Stevens, is Vice-Chancellor of the University of Leeds, and in the northwest region the Chairman of the Regional Council is the Vice-Chancellor of Lancaster University. It is possible to go right through the list of appointments to the regional councils and find vice-chancellors, professors of sociology and so on. This is a sign of the important part played in regional life by the universities. It is important to know just what are the views of the Minister on the part that representatives—and I concede that the members of the regional

councils are not delegates—of universities should play on the councils.
I am sure, to move beyond the question of regional councils, that the part played by the universities should not only be in respect of these councils but that they should carry out actual projects for the regional planning boards. And it is concerning these boards that I propose to concentrate my remarks.
I understand that the regional planning boards will be, in effect, in every region miniature Whitehalls, with civil servants in each region from the Department of Education and Science, the Ministries of Technology, Transport, Power, the Board of Trade and others. I understand that it was not unknown in the earliest days of regional planning to a degree, so to speak—when it came under the Board of Trade—for various faculties of universities to carry out projects for the Board. Indeed, I understand that at present the economics department of the University of Leeds is undertaking a market research survey on the journey to work for the Leeds Corporation Transport Department so that that Department can plan in anticipation of the needs of the community. I also understand that there is talk of a centre of transport study being set up at the University of Leeds. It was on the City of Leeds, of course, that Professor Buchanan concentrated a great deal of his investigation.
The whole general field of market research is important in so many ways. The universities are capable of carrying out detailed work of the kind needed. In America, the University of Michigan has a very powerful survey research centre which carries out research vitally important to industry in the United States in general. All I argue is that a similar centre or similar work carried out by the satistical departments, if that is apppropriate, at many universities, could be done regionally. Market research goes right across all Government Departments. In very many ways information could be provided. Professor Moser at the London School of Economics did that very valuable statistical work for the Robbins Report.
In more particular aspects, all universities can help regional planning. Perhaps the House will forgive me if I


concentrate on the University of Leeds, because that is the university with which I am far more concerned, with my interest in Yorkshire and Humberside. The faculty of science there runs courses in electronic computing. It could do work for the Ministry of Technology. It has, I believe, already done work for the D.S.I.R., and the D.S.I.R. might well be split into regions itself.
The university has done work for the N.C.B. It does work in fibre science. The faculty of economics produced in the Yorkshire Bulletin of Economic and Social Research a very valuable article by Mr. Wilkinson and Mr. Sigworth on slum clearance, a subject not without significance in Leeds and many another northern city. The N.E.D.C. not so long ago produced a pamphlet on "Investment Appraisal"—"The Importance of Better Investment Appraisal" would perhaps be a better title. It would be extremely valuable if the economics department of a university, not necessarily Leeds, could do research into investment appraisal on a much narrower front in the area with which it is concerned.
When one talks of under-developed areas one often thinks of other parts of the world and the remote areas in this country, but it would be possible to find areas under-developed industrially very close to major industrial towns. The universities might well investigate the problems there.
The Institute of Education at the University of Leeds already does much research under the U.G.C. It should play a far more important rôle in teacher supply, which is not without significance when looked at regionally. The Institute could also play some part in the training of educational administrators, which could be extremely important in the regions. A report on the educational needs of an area in the light of economic change would be an important piece of research which would add to the stock of knowledge about a region. In the Yorkshire and Humberside Region, what I have said about Leeds applies equally to Sheffield, York, Hull or the new University of Bradford.
The planning boards will tend to look at the situation now and in the immediate years ahead, but it is very important to get long-run research under way—the influence of R. and D. contracting, for

example, on growth; labour use in industrial change. It is important that this research should be team-project work, akin to that which ought to be done nationally by an economic research council.
In each region there should be postgraduate schools in regional planning. Long-term planning is vitally important, and is suitable for the universities to carry out. Already, at what is to be the new University of Bradford there has been carried out a regional survey of the drift to the South, and the small proportion of growth industry, etc. It is a very valuable report, and I commend it. Equally valuable work has been done by the town planning department of the Leeds School of Art, but it is most important that all this research should be in greater depth, and the universities and similar institutions are the bodies to carry out the work. I hope that the Minister will do all he can to make the universities realise the importance of the regional planning councils and the regional planning boards. Why not meetings of the various Ministries represented on the regional boards with the heads of the university faculties in each region? Why not a regional planning bulletin or a journal containing articles giving advice and reporting on the research that has been done by the universities? Regional planning plays a vital part and will play an increasingly vital part in the economic planning life of this country.
A vast amount of money is now being spent on the universities. It is very much a capital goods industry. I concede that they are national universities but I believe that, properly used, the universities of this country can help the regions in which they are situated and it is for this reason that I raise this subject tonight.

10.46 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State, Department of Economic Affairs (Mr. William Rodgers): I find myself in the very happy position of being able to endorse much of what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) and I certainly share the approach which he has shown to this question of regional research. As he knows, the Government attach the greatest importance not only in this regional field but over the whole broad


sweep of planning to much closer relationships between Government and the universities and also between Government, the universities and industry. We think there could be a greater interchange of ideas and, for that matter, an interchange of persons as well. We want to bring the universities as closely as we can into all our planning and fully to use them in the formulation of policy. I think I can say that in the regional field where this is specially true, the universities are already playing a part, and we look forward to them playing an increasing part in our regional planning as our policies unfold.
Last December when we began to look at the whole question of the future of the South-East, and in particular to review the Study which was published by the previous Government, it seemed to me that if we were to have a fresh look at these problems there would be a considerable advantage in bringing people in from outside, and so I held a one-day seminar at which we were able to draw upon the knowledge and advice of people in particular from the universities, who we thought would have a useful contribution to make to policy-making.
The other day I was very pleased to have the opportunity of going to the inaugural meeting of the new Regional Studies Association which is to provide a forum for ideas on regional planning and to stimulate study and research. This is not exclusively a university body, but I think it can make a most valuable contribution in the separate regions and to regional policy as a whole. In so far as this is helpful, it certainly has my blessing.
I hope it will succeed in bringing people together and will help to increase this liaison which exists already between the universities and Government. Some of this liaison must obviously be on an informal and personal basis, and I think I can say that the Department of Economic Affairs in this respect, as in others, is most accessible to persons and ideas. I am always happy to hear from anybody from the universities or elsewhere who has got a contribution to make to the problems which we are trying to solve. There is certainly no

monopoly of wisdom in Whitehall or Westminster on regional planning.
As my hon. Friend has said, we have succeeded in our new regional planning machinery in bringing in a number of people with very distinguished positions in the universities. He mentioned that we have Sir Roger Stevens, Vice-Chancellor of Leeds University. Then there are Mr. Charles Carter, Vice-Chancellor of Lancaster University, and Professor Tress of the University of Bristol. All three of these are chairmen of our new councils. I should also mention Mr. Hunt, the Chairman of the West Midlands Council and ProChancellor-designate of the University of Aston, who has played a great part in educational work and further education in the West Midlands. There are also 18 other university teachers, and an additional 18 people who serve on the governing bodies of universities—I speak not only of the councils in England but also of the councils in Wales and Scotland. It can be said therefore that we have made a special feature of the university link on our councils.
My hon. Friend asked what special role we saw for the university people who were serving on the councils. He knows, and he made the position very clear, that members of the councils serve in their individual capacities. They are there on merit, for their personal qualities and their knowledge and experience of a particular region. We believe that people who have spent their lifetime in university teaching and research can bring to the council a special element of academic discipline, knowledge of their own studies and knowledge of what is going on in other faculties and other universities, which will enable our councils to do a useful job of work.
It is not only or even mainly a liaison role. They have a quality of experience rather different from that of those who have made their reputation or given their time in local government or on either side of industry. It is interesting that university people on the councils come from faculties of economics, sociology, architecture, building science, town and country planning, government, and from other disciplines, because regional planning, if it is anything, is essentially an inter-disciplinary exercise. It is not


simply something for geographers or economists. It is a field in which many people with different experience and approaches must work together.
Our new machinery is already establishing very effective relationships with the universities. I have already mentioned Mr. Hunt. He is very anxious to build up association with the universities and look closely at economic growth in the West Midlands. In the Yorkshire and Humberside region, the chairman of the board there, Mr. Onslow, when meeting the Press after his appointment, made a particular point of saying that universities could make a very useful and practical contribution to the work of the regional council and the regional board in the Yorkshire and Humberside region.
My hon. Friend mentioned the possibility of having "little Whitehalls" in these regional centres. This was a good way of describing what we hope to see. We want decisions increasingly decentralised from Whitehall. This means building up, in boards and councils, a network of relationships and experience which will enable decisions to be made further down the line and further away from Whitehall than has been the case in the past.
We certainly feel that the boards will need a research staff. There is a problem here though. We do not want to draw everybody away from full-time research and teaching in the universities. Our board chairmen are exploring the possibility of having consultants attached to the boards on a part-time basis, and here again we wish to have a positive relationship. In Leeds, Hull, Sheffield, York and Bradford, the Yorkshire and Humberside region is particularly rich in universities which have made a valuable contribution and will do more in future.
My hon. Friend was right to point out that we do not want universities to deal with problems exclusively within their own region. If we are to have research in depth it must be right across the national picture and not simply into the details, however important, in separate regions. There is a great deal to be done on the whole theory of regional economics. This should be done in a number of universities and there should be a division of labour on national issues.

There should not be universities in each region concentrating only on problems peculiar to their region.
I should like now to say something about the direct relationship of the Department of Economic Affairs with the universities in regional planning. There is an item in the Department of Economic Affairs Estimates for 1965–66 for special inquiries into regional economic planning and research projects. We have in mind that over a period, we may be commissioning further studies which will be able to contribute either nationally or in the separate regions to the solutions of our problems. Already, in Durham, Mr. Alan Odber of the Business Research Unit is doing some very good work, to which we attach great importance, on the growth potential of the North-East. In Lancaster, under Professor Sturmey—it is very good to see this in a new university which is just feeling its way—work is being done on a social and economic survey of Cumberland, Westmorland and Lancashire north of the Ribble. These are separate studies, but we think that they may be the beginning of further and more exhaustive studies in these universities and others.
The House will know of the research we have already commissioned into office location. This is a very important matter. If we are to keep office development out of the centre of London, we must find the locations which will be most attractive to developers. On this, as on other subjects to which I shall refer in a moment, there is a good deal of work still to be done.
The Department of Economic Affairs, although responsible overall for regional planning, does not deal with the separate executive responsibilities of other Departments. It is right that I should remind the House of the Research Advisory Group of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government which is doing valuable work on urban planning research, of the cost-benefit studies at Oxford and the network analysis at London being done for the Ministry of Transport—because transport planning is a very important part of regional planning—and of the work being done on the possible use of computers for regional planning by the Ministry of Technology. Having lately returned from a visit to Scotland, I must say how interesting it is to see the


relationship being built up between the Scottish Development Department and the Scottish universities, out of which, I think, much good may come.
While I am on the subject of Scotland, may I commend one publication which comes out of Glasgow University, the journal, "Urban Studies," which is most valuable for regional studies? I regard this as an admirable journal, and I read every issue. It is not concerned only, as might appear, with urban studies but with the wider picture about which we are concerned. It is very much to the credit of Glasgow Corporation that it has made an annual grant of£5,000 towards the work of the urban studies unit within the university which is responsible for publication of "Urban Studies."
My own personal feeling is that we still have not got enough journals which seriously look, as my hon. Friend put it, in depth into regional questions. It may be that we should have some journals within the regions. The Regional Studies Association, which I mentioned, is considering the possibility of a journal, and this will be one further stage along the road which we all hope to travel.
In the last six months, during which I have been particularly concerned with regional planning, I have found more unanswered questions than questions to which we have yet got fully convincing answers. We all have our guesses in regional matters, but guesswork alone is not enough, and I should be ready at any time, either in the House or elsewhere, to give a long list of subjects upon which research is still to be done. I might mention the factors governing migration, the factors governing industrial growth and decline, the incentives necessary for industrial movement—whether financial incentives are more valuable than the provision of infrastructure—and congestion costs, about which we all have views but about which many of us have little real knowledge. I have already mentioned office location. There is the problem of the optimum size of towns. There is the problem of employment structure and growth, the problem of industrial movement, and so on. These are all real hard questions related to regional planning, and we shall find answers to them over a period.
We need all the help that the universities can give us, and we wish to call upon their resources. I do not think the demands which we should like to make upon them are in any way incompatible with the universities' own proper concern for teaching and for pure research. The work we should like to see done would be an integral part of that normal university research and teaching function. It could be done to the mutual advantage of universities—without any infringement of their independence—and the Government and, therefore, to the country as a whole.
Perhaps I should say—maybe it could be regarded as a quid pro quo—that we on our part in the Department of Economic Affairs and generally in the Government will do all we can to give university research workers access to information. It is, I know, a longstanding grievance that people in the universities want to have information which is not available to them. There are problems—problems of confidential relationships between Government and business, for example. We must not break confidences. But we hope to be able to move some way in providing information not yet available. In particular, this summer we hope to begin a digest of regional statistics, for which many hon. Members have asked in the past. This is a gesture to show that there is a two-way traffic here. We will help the universities if they can help us.
Speaking personally, although there are many people now concerned with regional planning and research, and though there are a number of projects—those mentioned by my hon. Friend and myself and many others—under way, there is scope for a good deal more development of regional studies in the universities. The possibility has been canvassed of one or more centres specifically designed for regional inter-disciplinary studies in or associated with universities or institutions of equivalent academic status. The assumption is made that such centres would receive significant Government financial support. These proposals have very wide implications. All I would like to say is that I find myself very sympathetic towards them, and we in the Department are examining them very carefully to see whether some new and important departure can here be made which would help to move towards


a solution of the problems I have mentioned and would strengthen those within the universities who are carrying on these important regional studies.
I hope also that now that we have set up this new machinery in the six regions of England—and we shall shortly be looking at the best machinery to deal with problems in the South-East—and also in Scotland and in Wales, there will be increasing understanding that regional policies are concerned not only, as my hon. Friend said, or not even mainly today, with welfare policy but also with economic growth, and that regional policies are as important in the South-East of the country, in the west Midlands and the east Midlands, which are relatively prosperous, as in the North-East and in Scotland.
If we are to achieve a 25 per cent. growth by 1970, we must harness the full resources of the under-employed regions and at the same time deal with problems of congestion in those areas where congestion is now the main

characteristic: this is the case for more regional planning. We shall be doing what we can from the Department, but we place, as the House knows, a very heavy responsibility on the councils and the boards in the regions. While we shall he doing our part in encouraging the universities in the fields which my hon. Friend mentioned, the more the councils and boards can themselves take initiatives, establish better relations with the universities and draw in advice given by university teachers and researchers, the happier we shall be. We certainly take a very positive view of the part which universities can play in regional planning. We shall place no impediment in their path. As far as we are concerned, it is a partnership, and we believe that a partnership can be very fruitful indeed for the country as a whole.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes past Eleven o'clock.